Skip to main content

LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases
draft-ietf-lisp-geo-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (lisp WG)
Author Dino Farinacci
Last updated 2024-06-06
Replaces draft-farinacci-lisp-geo
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-lisp-geo-07
Network Working Group                                       D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                               lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental                                6 June 2024
Expires: 8 December 2024

                     LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases
                         draft-ietf-lisp-geo-07

Abstract

   This document describes how Geo-Coordinates can be used in the LISP
   Architecture and Protocols.  The functionality proposes a new LCAF
   encoding for such Geo-Coordinates, which is compatible with the GPS
   encodings used by other routing protocols.

   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 8 December 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Relevant Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  Geo-Points in RLOC-records  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records  . . . . . .   4
   5.  Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Backward Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix B.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-07 . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06 . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-05 . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-04 . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-03 . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-02 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-01 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-00 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.9.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-15  . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-14  . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-13  . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-12  . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.13. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-11  . . . . . . . . .  14
     B.14. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10  . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.15. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09  . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.16. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08  . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.17. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07  . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.18. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06  . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.19. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05  . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.20. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04  . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.21. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03  . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.22. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02  . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.23. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01  . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.24. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00  . . . . . . . . .  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

1.  Introduction

   The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC9300] introduce 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) [RFC1700].

   This document proposes a new LCAF encoding for Geo-Coordinates, which
   is compatible with the one used in other routing protocols, namely
   OSPF [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS
   [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], and BGP
   [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols

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

2.  Requirements Notation

   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

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

   Geo-Prefix  forms a circle 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 circle.

4.  Relevant Use Cases

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

4.1.  Geo-Points in RLOC-records

   Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical
   location of an ETR or 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 can 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.

   Here is a high-level use-case where an EID can map to a Geo-
   Coordinate RLOC.  Lets 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 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.

   The encoding format is consistent with the encoding used in other
   routing protocols, namely OSPF [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS
   [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], and BGP
   [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates].

4.2.  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 circle 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.

   A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-name-encoding] 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.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

   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
   Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map-
   Requestor.

   When a Geo-Point EID is looked up in the mapping system, what is
   returned is the longest prefix match.  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 has a mask-length/radius which is smaller than what
   is registered for any matching Geo-Prefix in the mapping system, then
   all Geo-Prefixes are returned.  This uses the same overlapping lookup
   semantics defined in [RFC9301] for IP address EIDs.

   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:

   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.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

   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 RLOC can be selected to encapsulate
   packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID
   location.  And when there are intersecting circles, it can be
   determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles,
   it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base
   stations.

   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 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 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).

5.  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 new Geo-Location format is:

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

     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.

   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.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

   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.  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
      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 circle
      (or sphere) 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 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].

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

6.  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.

7.  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, an 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.

   An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship
   with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP).  When xTRs register their
   mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon
   about who can access the information.  Typically, the policy is
   stored locally and processed by the xTR when the 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.

   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.

8.  Privacy Considerations

   In addition to controlling where LISP Geo-Coordinate mapping records
   go and applying policies [Section 7] for who can access them, there
   are additional steps that can be taken to protect threats.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

   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.

   *  Encrypting mapping records with either shared keys or using PKI
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] so data is confidential both in transit
      to/from and at rest in the mapping system.  Implementations exist
      which do encryption for various contract-tracing (virus-related)
      applications.

   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.

9.  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:

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

          Table 1: Geo-Location LCAF Type Assignment

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [GEO]      Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic
              System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, 3 January 2000,
              <http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/
              wgs84fin.pdf>.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

   [RFC1700]  Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1700>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

10.2.  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>.

   [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-12, 19 February
              2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              lisp-ecdsa-auth-12>.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-name-encoding]
              Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-
              07, 14 May 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-07>.

   [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>.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

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.

Appendix B.  Document Change Log

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

B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-07

   *  Posted June 2024.

   *  Made changes to reflect Rtgdir review by Ines Robles.

B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06

   *  Posted May 2024.

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

B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-05

   *  Posted April 2024.

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

B.4.  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.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-03

   *  Posted November 2023.

   *  Update document timer and references.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-02

   *  Posted June 2023.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-01

   *  Posted December 2022.

   *  Changes made to reflect comments from Luigi.

B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-geo-00

   *  Posted November 2022.

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

B.9.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-15

   *  Posted November 2022.

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

B.10.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-14

   *  Posted September 2022.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.11.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-13

   *  Posted March 2022.

   *  Update document timer and references.

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

   *  Posted September 2021.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.13.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-11

   *  Posted March 2021.

   *  Update document timer and references.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

B.14.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10

   *  Posted October 2020.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.15.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09

   *  Posted April 2020.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.16.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08

   *  Posted October 2019.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.17.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07

   *  Posted April 2019.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.18.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06

   *  Posted October 2018.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.19.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05

   *  Posted April 2018.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.20.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04

   *  Posted October 2017.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.21.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03

   *  Posted April 2017.

   *  Update document timer.

Farinacci                Expires 8 December 2024               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft        LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases            June 2024

B.22.  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.23.  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.

   *  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.24.  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 8 December 2024               [Page 16]