LISP Geo-Coordinates
draft-ietf-lisp-geo-20

Network Working Group                                       D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                               lispers.net
Updates: 8060 (if approved)                                14 March 2026
Intended status: Experimental                                           
Expires: 15 September 2026

                          LISP Geo-Coordinates
                         draft-ietf-lisp-geo-20

Abstract

   This document describes how Geo-Coordinates can be used in the
   Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The functionality proposes a
   new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) encoding for such Geo-
   Coordinate.

   This document updates RFC8060.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 15 September 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Geo-Points in RLOC-records  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records  . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Geo-Points and Geo-Prefixes Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Locating a Package  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  Wireless Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.3.  Vehicular Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Backward Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix B.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-20 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-19 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-18 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-17 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-16 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-15 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-14 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-13 . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.9.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-12 . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-11 . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-10 . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-09 . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-08 . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-07 . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06 . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-05 . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-04 . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-03 . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

     B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-02 . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-01 . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-00 . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.22. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-15  . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.23. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-14  . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.24. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-13  . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.25. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-12  . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.26. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-11  . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.27. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10  . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.28. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09  . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.29. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08  . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.30. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.31. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.32. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.33. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.34. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.35. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.36. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.37. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00  . . . . . . . . .  19
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC9300] introduces two
   new namespaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators
   (RLOCs) which are intended to separate the semantics of identity and
   topological location from an IP address.  To provide flexibility for
   current and future applications, these values can be encoded in LISP
   control messages using a general syntax that includes Address Family
   Identifier (AFI) [RFC3232].

   This document defines a new LCAF encoding for Geo-Coordinates, which
   deviates from the structure defined in [RFC9179], because a more
   compact encoding was desired.

   This document updates [RFC8060].  In particular, the use of Geo-
   Coordinates encoding defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC8060] and
   identified by LCAF type 5 is deprecated.  The LCAF type defined in
   this document is called "Geo-Location" with a new LCAF type
   allocated.

   The Geo-Coordinates LCAF type is used in EID-records and RLOC-
   records.  See [RFC9301] for which LISP messages contain EID-records
   and RLOC-records.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   This document is part of a development effort to include Geo-
   Coordinates in LISP.  Is not part of an "experiment", as not all
   experimental RFCs are necessarily part of an experiment.  It is about
   the maturity level of the technology.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Definition of Terms

   Refer to [RFC9300] for authoritative definitions for basic terms EID,
   RLOC, and xTRs.  The terms defined in this section add to the
   canonical definitions to reflect the design considerations in this
   specification.

   Geo-Point:  is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a
      point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude.

   Geo-Prefix:  forms a sphere (in 3 dimensions) of a geographic area
      made up of a Geo-Point and a Radius.  A Geo-Point is known to be
      "more-specific" than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is
      within the geographic sphere.

4.  Geo-Points in RLOC-records

   Geo-Points MAY be present in an RLOC-record to determine the physical
   location of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) or Re-encapsulating Tunnel
   Router (RTR).  This can aid in determining geographical distance when
   topological distance is inaccurate or hidden.  When Geo-Points are
   encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF AFI-List Type
   SHOULD be used.

   Geo-Points MAY be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC-
   record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate.  If it is desirable to
   find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be
   convenient.  For instance, let's say that an EID is assigned to a
   physical shipping package by a package delivery company.  And the EID
   is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded
   in an IPv6 EID.  The network has LISP nodes deployed in many
   locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates.
   As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers
   it to the LISP mapping system.  The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate.  If someone does a mapping database lookup
   on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate.  As the EID
   roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored,
   allowing the physical tracking of the package.

5.  Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records

   A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius.
   This allows a sphere to be drawn on a geographic map.  The Geo-Prefix
   can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in
   an RLOC-record.  So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping
   database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact
   location where a Geo-Point would locate it.  For Instance, a Geo-
   Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name [RFC9735] to be registered as
   an EID with an RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix.  For example EID="San
   Francisco", with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping
   system.

   A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as
   an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a
   sort of longest match could be looked up.  If the Geo-Point is in the
   Sphere described by the Geo-Prefix, the matching entry MUST be
   returned to the Map-Requestor.  In this context, what is returned is
   the Geo-Prefix with the largest radius value, which corresponds to
   the largest physical area.  If the Geo-Point supplied in a Map-
   Request matches several Geo-Prefixes in the mapping system, then all
   Geo-Prefixes MUST be returned.  This uses the same overlapping lookup
   semantics defined in [RFC9301] for IP address EIDs.

6.  Geo-Points and Geo-Prefixes Examples

6.1.  Locating a Package

   You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to
   ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"?  This could be
   done with two lookups to the mapping system:

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   Contents of Mapping Database:
     EID=<dist-name="san francisco">
     RLOC=<geo-prefix-of-60-mile-radius-of-sf>

     EID=<ipv6-package-tracking-number>
     RLOC=<geo-point-of-current-location>

     EID=<geo-prefix-of-60-mile-radius-of-sf>
     RLOC=<dist-name="san francisco">

   Map-Request for package:
     EID=<ipv6-package-tracking-number>
   Mapping system returns:
     RLOC=<geo-point-of-current-location>

   Map-Request for geo-point:
     EID=<geo-point-of-current-location>
   Mapping system longest-match lookup returns:
     EID=<geo-prefix-of-60-mile-radius-of-sf>
     RLOC=<dist-name="san francisco">

   If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table
   lookup would fail.

6.2.  Wireless Connectivity

   Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points.  The
   radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength.  An EID
   could be located in any of the inner rings but possibly on the edge
   of a ring.  A WiFi access-point (AP) RLOC can be selected to
   encapsulate packets because it will have better signal to the current
   EID location.  And when there are intersecting spheres, it can be
   determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the spheres,
   it would be a good time to transition radios to closer WiFi APs or
   3GPP RAN base-stations.

6.3.  Vehicular Networks

   When assigning EIDs to vehicles
   [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to
   create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs).  So an Ingress
   Tunnel Router (ITR) could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-
   Prefix to try to create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming.
   This makes use of predictive RLOCs [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs]
   that can be used when the direction of the roaming EID is known (a
   train track or single direction road, but not a flight path of a
   plane).

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

7.  Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings

   When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is
   encoded solely with the Geo-Location LCAF Type format when VPNs are
   not in use.  When VPNs are used, the Geo-Location LCAF Type is
   encoded in the AFI field of the Instance-ID LCAF Type.

   This document has no provision to validate the Geo-Location values.

   The Geo-Location format is:

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Type = 17   |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|N|E|A|M|R|K|    Reserved     |     Location Uncertainty      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  Lat Degrees  |        Latitude Milliseconds                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  Long Degrees |        Longitude Milliseconds                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                            Altitude                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |             Radius            |          Reserved             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |              AFI              |         Address  ...          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 1 - Geo-Location LCAF Encoding Format

   AFI:  Set to 16387 to indicate that the address is using the LCAF
      format from [RFC8060].

   Type:  17 (suggested)

   Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags:  See [RFC8060] for details.

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   U-bit:  If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location
      Uncertainty" field is used.  If the U-bit is clear, it indicates
      the "Location Uncertainty" field sent as 0 and ignored on receipt.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   N-bit:  If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is North
      relative to the Equator.  If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the
      Latitude is South of the Equator.

   E-bit:  If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is East of
      the Prime Meridian.  If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the
      Longitude is West of the Prime Meridian.

   A-bit:  If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is
      used.  If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" field is
      sent as 0 and ignored on receipt.

   M-bit:  If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified
      in meters.  If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is
      in centimeters.

   R-bit:  If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is used
      and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix.  If the R-bit is clear, it
      indicates the "Radius" field is set to 0 and and the encoding is a
      Geo-Point.

   K-bit:  If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified
      in kilometers.  If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius"
      is in meters.

   Reserved:  These bits are reserved for future use for the addition of
      bit fields from the previous field.  They MUST be set to 0 when
      sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving
      protocol packets.

   Location Uncertainty:  Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number
      of centimeters of uncertainty for the location.

   Latitude Degrees:  Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90
      degrees North or South of the Equator (northern or southern
      hemisphere, respectively).

   Latitude Milliseconds:  Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 -
      3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes).

   Longitude Degrees:  Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180
      degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian.

   Longitude Milliseconds:  Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 -
      3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes).

   Altitude:  Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

      sea level in centimeters or meters.  A negative height indicates
      that the location is below sea level.

   Radius:  Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a sphere
      (or circle if altitude not specified) centered at the specified
      coordinates.  The radius is specified in meters unless the K-bit
      is specified indicating radius is in kilometers.  When the radius
      is specified, this LCAF type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the Geo-
      Coordinates define the entire area of the sphere or circle defined
      by the radius and center point.

   AFI/Address:  The AFI field indicates the Address Family Identifier
      for the following address from from [AFI] and [RFC8060].

8.  Backward Compatibility Considerations

   EID-records encoded with the Geo-Location LCAF are supported only by
   LISP nodes that support them for registration and lookup purposes.

   RLOC-records encoded with the Geo-Location LCAF can be returned from
   the mapping system lookups to LISP nodes that do not understand them.
   In such situations, the RLOC-record is ignored.

9.  Security Considerations

   The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered
   carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical
   location.  This draft does take into consideration the applicability
   of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection.

   In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the
   Mapping Database System.  When this occurs, any Tunnel Router (xTR)
   is allowing its physical location to be known to queriers of the
   mapping system as well as network components that make up the mapping
   system.  There are various sets of trust relationships that may
   exist.

   When xTRs register their mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a
   policy is associated about who can access the information.
   Typically, the policy is stored locally on the xTR and applied when
   the Mapping Service Provider (MSP) forwards Map-Requests to the xTRs
   of the LISP site.  Conditionally, based on the requesting xTR, the
   responding xTR can apply the local policy to decide if a Map-Reply is
   sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the RLOC-records that do not
   contain Geo-Coordinate information.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to
   Map-Requests.  In this case, the MSP MUST apply the xTR policy so
   only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information.

   Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned
   directly to the requester and are signed with [RFC9303].  The Map-
   Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be encrypted
   by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate information
   can occur.

   In most deployment cases, there is no tracking of EID host-based
   systems since Geo-Coordinate assignment is typically registered for
   LISP xTRs devices or other asset inventory.  However, since Geo-
   Coordinate encoded RLOCs can be associated with any EID, and if such
   EID is assigned to hosts, tracking of hosts can occur.

10.  Privacy Considerations

   In addition to controlling where LISP Geo-Coordinate mapping records
   go and applying policies (see Security Considerations section) for
   who can access them, there are additional steps that can be taken to
   protect against threats.

   The suggestions from [RFC6973] can be implemented by existing LISP
   features, such as:

   *  Using signatures from [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] can authenticate
      and authorize who can request such mapping records.

   *  Obfuscating a Geo-Point by using Geo-Prefixes instead uses data
      minimization techniques.

   *  Using short TTLs so the Geo-Coordinate mapping records are
      ephemeral reduces the attack window.

   The typical applicability for the use of Geo-Coordinates will be to
   describe physical location for well known public structures, places,
   and landmarks versus people, vehicles, and equipment.

11.  IANA Considerations

   Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a
   value (17 is suggested) for the Geo-Coordinates LCAF from the "LISP
   Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in [RFC8060]
   as follows:

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   +=========+=====================+============================+
   | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name |         Reference          |
   +=========+=====================+============================+
   |   17    |   Geo-Location      | [This Document], Section 5 |
   +---------+---------------------+----------------------------+

          Table 1: Geo-Location LCAF Type Assignment

   This document updates the format of LCAF Type value 5 in [RFC8060],
   IANA is asked to deprecate type value 5.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [GEO]      Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic
              System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, 3 January 2000,
              <http://geodesy.unr.edu/hanspeterplag/library/geodesy/
              wgs84fin.pdf>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3232]  Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
              by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
              January 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.

   [RFC6280]  Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
              Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for
              Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications",
              BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6280>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC8060]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
              February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9179]  Hopps, C., "A YANG Grouping for Geographic Locations",
              RFC 9179, DOI 10.17487/RFC9179, February 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9179>.

   [RFC9300]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
              Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.

   [RFC9301]  Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
              Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
              Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.

   [RFC9303]  Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., and D. Saucez,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Security (LISP-SEC)",
              RFC 9303, DOI 10.17487/RFC9303, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9303>.

   [RFC9735]  Farinacci, D. and L. Iannone, Ed., "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Distinguished Name Encoding", RFC 9735,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9735, February 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9735>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [AFI]      "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
              NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-
              numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, February 2007.

   [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location]
              Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for
              Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-acee-ospf-geo-location-05,
              18 October 2017, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-acee-ospf-geo-location-05>.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates]
              Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo
              Coordinates in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02, 31 October 2016,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-idr-geo-
              coordinates-02>.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth]
              Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA
              Authentication and Authorization", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth-16, 29 January
              2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              lisp-ecdsa-auth-16>.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs]
              Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive
              RLOCs", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
              predictive-rlocs-15, 19 September 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-
              predictive-rlocs-15>.

   [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement]
              Jeong, J. P. and T. T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-
              to-Infrastructure Networking", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement-02, 19 July
              2016, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-
              its-v2i-problem-statement-02>.

   [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates]
              Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates
              Information In IS-IS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-04, 18 October 2017,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-shen-isis-
              geo-coordinates-04>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and
   acceptance of this draft.

   A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for
   collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF
   [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates],
   and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

Appendix B.  Document Change Log

   [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]

B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-20

   *  Posted March 2026 by Dino.

   *  Luigi made changes to reflect Deb's comments.  Thanks Luigi.

B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-19

   *  Posted February 2026 by Dino.

   *  Luigi made changes to reflect Ketan's comments.  Thanks Luigi.

B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-18

   *  Posted July 2025.

   *  Added text to indicate why the encoding deviates from [RFC9179].

B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-17

   *  Posted June 2025.

   *  Made remaining changes with text from Luigi to satisfy Deb, Ketan,
      and Med comments.

B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-16

   *  Posted June 2025.

   *  Made changes to reflect comments from Med, Ketan, Deb, Gunter, and
      Eric in one document revision pass.

B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-15

   *  Posted May 2025.

   *  Made changes to reflect Internet AD (Erik Kline) and Med Boucadiar
      reviews.

B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-14

   *  Posted May 2025.

   *  Made changes to reflect Genart (Jouni Korhonen) review.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-13

   *  Posted May 2025.

   *  Made changes to reflect Opsdir (Tim Wicinski) and Secdir (Prachi
      Jain) reviews.

B.9.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-12

   *  Posted May 2025.

   *  Made changes to reflect Rtgdir review by Yingzhen.

B.10.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-11

   *  Posted April 2025.

   *  Made changes to fix IDNITs and Jim's editorial comments.

B.11.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-10

   *  Posted February 2025.

   *  Made editorial changes to address Alvaro comments.

B.12.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-09

   *  Posted January 2025.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.13.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-08

   *  Posted July 2024.

   *  Made changes to reflect review by Kiran Makhijani.

B.14.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-07

   *  Posted June 2024.

   *  Made changes to reflect Rtgdir review by Ines Robles.

B.15.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06

   *  Posted May 2024.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 15]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   *  Modify the abstract and change requesting 17 to suggesting type
      17.

B.16.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-05

   *  Posted April 2024.

   *  Made more changes to allocate new type for the Geo-Coordinates
      LCAF.

B.17.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-04

   *  Posted April 2024.

   *  Make changes to reflect comments from Luigi which indicate to be
      more explicit about consitentcy of geo encodings with IGPs.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.18.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-03

   *  Posted November 2023.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.19.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-02

   *  Posted June 2023.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.20.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-01

   *  Posted December 2022.

   *  Changes made to reflect comments from Luigi.

B.21.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-00

   *  Posted November 2022.

   *  Renamed draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-15 to make working group draft.

B.22.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-15

   *  Posted November 2022.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 16]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   *  Made change to reflect last call comments.  First sentence of
      intro and added a Privacy Considerations section.

B.23.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-14

   *  Posted September 2022.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.24.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-13

   *  Posted March 2022.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.25.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-12

   *  Posted September 2021.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.26.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-11

   *  Posted March 2021.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.27.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10

   *  Posted October 2020.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.28.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09

   *  Posted April 2020.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.29.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08

   *  Posted October 2019.

   *  Update document timer and references.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 17]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

B.30.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07

   *  Posted April 2019.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.31.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06

   *  Posted October 2018.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.32.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05

   *  Posted April 2018.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.33.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04

   *  Posted October 2017.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.34.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03

   *  Posted April 2017.

   *  Update document timer.

B.35.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02

   *  Posted October 2016.

   *  Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible
      with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP.

   *  Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance.

B.36.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01

   *  Posted October 2016.

   *  Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded
      inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used.

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 18]
Internet-Draft            LISP Geo-Coordinates                March 2026

   *  Indicate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included
      in a message.  Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is
      specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a
      message.

B.37.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00

   *  Initial draft posted April 2016.

Author's Address

   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose, CA
   United States of America
   Email: farinacci@gmail.com

Farinacci               Expires 15 September 2026              [Page 19]