Ground-Based LISP for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network
draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn-01

Versions: 00 01                                                         
LISP Working Group                                             B. Haindl
Internet-Draft                                                M. Lindner
Intended status: Informational                                Frequentis
Expires: March 26, 2018                                        R. Rahman
                                                             M. Portoles
                                                               V. Moreno
                                                                F. Maino
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                      September 22, 2017


   Ground-Based LISP for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network
                    draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn-00

Abstract

   This document describes the use of the LISP architecture and
   protocols to address the requirements of the worldwide Aeronautical
   Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services, as
   articulated by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

   The ground-based LISP overlay provides mobility and multi-homing
   services to the IPv6 networks hosted on commercial aircrafts, to
   support Air Traffic Management communications with Air Traffic
   Controllers and Air Operation Controllers.  The proposed architecture
   doesn't require support for LISP protocol in the airborne routers,
   and can be easily deployed over existing ground infrastructures.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

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."



Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 26, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Basic Protocol Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Endsystem Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Ground to Airborne Traffic Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Airborne to Ground Traffic Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Default forwarding path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  Traffic symmetry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Multi-Homing and Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Use of RLOC-probing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Use of Solicit-Map-Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.3.  Use of LISP pub-sub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the use of the LISP [RFC6830] architecture
   and protocols to address the requirements of the worldwide
   Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol
   Services (ATN/IPS), as articulated by the International Civil
   Aviation Organization (ICAO).



Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


   ICAO is proposing to replace the existing aeronautical communication
   services with an IPv6 based infrastructure that supports Air Traffic
   Management (ATM) between commercial aircrafts, Air Traffic
   Controllers (ATC) and Air Operation Controllers (AOC).

   This document describes how a LISP overlay can be used to offer
   mobility and multi-homing services to the IPv6 networks hosted on
   commercial aircrafts without requiring LISP support in the airborne
   routers.  Use of the LISP protocol is limited to the ground-based
   routers, hence the name "ground-based LISP".  The material for this
   document is derived from [GBL].

2.  Definition of Terms

      AOC: Airline Operational Control

      ATN/IPS: Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet
      Protocol Services

      AC-R: Access Ground Router

      A/G-R: Air/Ground Router

      G/G-R: Ground/Ground Router

      A-R: Airborne Router

      A-E: Airborne Endsystem

      ATS-E: ATS Endsystem

   For definitions of other terms, notably Map-Register, Map-Request,
   Map-Reply, Routing Locator (RLOC), Solicit-Map-Request (SMR), Ingress
   Tunnel Router (ITR), Egress Tunnel Router (ETR), xTR (ITR or ETR),
   Map-Server (MS), and Map-Resolver (MR) please consult the LISP
   specification [RFC6830].

3.  Design Overview

   In the ATN/IPS architecture the airborne endsystems hosted on an
   aircraft are part of an IPV6 network connected to the ground network
   by one or more Airborne Routers (A-R).  A-Rs have multiple radio
   interfaces that connects them via various radios infrastructures
   (e.g.  SATCOM, LDACS, AeroMACS) to a given radio region, also known
   as subnetwork, on the ground.  Typically an A-R has a corresponding
   ground based Access Router (AC-R) that terminates the radio protocol
   with the A-R and provides access services to the ground based portion
   of the radio network infrastructure.  Each radio region is



Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


   interconnected with the ATN/IPS ground network via an Air-to-Ground
   router (AG-R).

   Similarly, the Air Traffic Controllers and Air Operation Controllers
   Endsystems (ATS-E and AOC-E) are part of IPv6 networks reachable via
   one or more Ground-to-Ground Routers (G/G-Rs).

   The ATN/IPS ground network infrastructure is the internetworking
   region located between the A/G routers and the G/G routers.

   In the ground-based LISP architecture a LISP overlay is laid over the
   ATN/IPS internetworking region (that is in the LISP RLOC space) and
   provides connectivity between endsystems (that are in the LISP EID
   space) hosted in the aircrafts and in the AOC/ATS regions.  The A/
   G-Rs and the G/G-Rs assume the role of LISP xTRs supported by a LISP
   mapping system infrastructure.



































Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


                                                    ,------,
                                      ,---------.   : A-E1 :
                                    ,'           `./'------'
                                   (    AIRCRAFT   )
                                    `.  +-----+  ,'\ ,------,
                                      `-| A-R |-'   \: A-E2 :
                                        +-----+      '------'
                                      //       \\
                                     //         \\
                              +---+--+           +-+--+--+
                        .--.-.| AC-R1|'.-.      .| AC-R2 |.-.
                       (      +---+--+    )    ( +-+--+--+   )
                      (                __.    (              '.
                    ..'SATCOM Region  )      .' LDACS Region  )
                   (              .'-'      (              .'-'
                    '  +-------+  )          '  +-------+   )
                     '-| A/G-R |-'            '-| A/G-R |-''
                       |       |                |       |
                       |  xTR1 |                | xTR2  |
                       +-------+                +-------+
                             \                      /
                              \    .--..--. .--. ../
                               \  (    '           '.--.
                               .-.'  Internetworking   ''   '-------'
                              (          region          )--: MS/MR :
                               (     (RLOC SPACE)    '-''   '-------'
                                ._.'--'._.'.-._.'.-._)
                                  /                   \
                              +---+---+               +-+--+--+
                          -.-.| G/G-R |'.            .| G/G-R |.
                         (    |       |  )          ( |       | )
                        (     |  xTR3 |   )        (  | xTR4  |  )
                       (      +---+---+    )      (   +-+--+--+   )
                      (                _._.      (               '.
                    ..'  ATS Region   )         .'   AOC Region  )
                   (              .'-'          (             .'-'
                     '--'._.'.    )\            '--'._.'.    )\
                      /       '--'  \            /       '--'  \
                  '--------'    '--------'   '--------'   '--------'
                  : ATS-E1 :    : ATS-E2 :   : AOC-E1 :   : AOC-E2 :
                  '--------'    '--------'   '--------'   '--------'


              Figure 1: ATN/IPS and ground-based LISP overlay

   Endsystems in the AOC/ATS regions are mapped in the LISP overlay by
   the G/G-Rs, that are responsible for the registration of the AOC/ATS
   endsystems to the LISP mapping system.



Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


   Aircrafts will attach to a specific radio region, via the radio
   interfaces of the A-Rs.  How the radio attachment works is specific
   to each particular radio infrastructure, and out of the scope of this
   document, see [GBL].

   Typically at the end of the attachment phase, the access router (AC-
   R) corresponding to the A-R, will announce the reachability of the
   EID prefixes corresponding to the attached aircraft (the announcement
   is specific to each particular radio infrastructure, and is out of
   the scope of this document).  A/G-Rs in that particular radio region
   are responsible to detect those announcements, and, since they act as
   xTRs, register to the LISP mapping systems the corresponding IPv6 EID
   prefixes on behalf of the A-R.

   The EID prefixes registered by the A/G-Rs are then reachable by any
   of the AOC/ATS Endsystems that are part of the ground based LISP
   overlay.

   The LISP infrastructure is used to support seamless aircraft mobility
   from one radio network to another, as well as multi-homing attachment
   of an aircraft to multiple radio networks with use of LISP weight and
   priorities to load balance traffic directed toward the aircraft.

   The rest of this document provides further details on how ground-
   based LISP is used to address the requirements of the ATN/IPS use
   cases.  The main design goals are:

   o  minimize added complexity on the aircraft

      *  airborne routers can assume that any ground system is reachable
         via any A/G router.  Static routing policies can be used on
         board

      *  no need for routing/mobility protocols on board.  Routing/
         mobility is managed on the ground ATN/IPS network

      *  on-board outgoing link selection can be done with simple static
         policy

   o  seamless support for aircraft mobility and multi-homing with
      minimal traffic overhead on the A/G datalink

   o  minimize complexity of ground deployment

      *  ground-based LISP can be easily deployed over existing ATN/IPS
         ground infrastructure

      *  it is based on COTS solutions



Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


      *  can ease IPv4 to IPv6 transition issues

4.  Basic Protocol Operation

   Figure 1 provides the reference topology for a description of the
   basic operation.  A more detailed description of the basic protocol
   operation is described in [GBL].

4.1.  Endsystem Registration

   The following are the steps via which airborne endsystem prefixes are
   registered with the LISP mapping system:

   1.  Each Airborne Endsystem (A-E) is assigned an IPv6 address that is
       the endsystem EID.  Each EID includes a Network-ID prefix that
       comprises (1) an ICAO ID which uniquely identifies the aircraft,
       and possibly (2) an aircraft network identifier.  Airborne
       devices are grouped in one (and possibly several) IPv6 EID
       prefixes.  As an example an IPv6 EID prefix could be used for all
       ATC applications located in a safety critical domain of the
       aircraft network, another IPv6 EID prefix could be used for AOC
       applications located in a less safety critical domain.

   2.  After the Airborne Router (A-R) on an aircraft attaches to one
       radio region, the corresponding Access Router (AC-R) learns the
       IPv6 EID prefixes belonging to the aircraft.  The AC-R also
       announces reachability of these prefixes in the radio region
       (subnetwork) e.g. by using an IGP protocol like OSPF.  The
       attachment to a radio includes a preference parameter and a
       quality parameter, these parameters are used e.g. to calculate
       the IGP reachability advertisement metric.

   3.  The Air/Ground Router (A/G-R) in the subnetwork receives the
       radio region announcements which contain reachablity information
       for the IPv6 EID prefixes corresponding to the Airborne
       Endsystems.  Since each A/G-R is also an xTR, the A/G-R registers
       the IPv6 EID prefixes with the LISP MS/MR on behalf of the A-R.
       The included quality parameter (e.g.  IGP metric) is converted to
       a LISP priority, so that a lower quality metric results in a
       lower LISP priority value.

   Ground based endsystems are part of ground subnetworks where the
   Ground/Ground Router (G/G-R) is an xTR.  Each G/G-R therefore
   registers the prefixes corresponding to the AOC endsystems and ATS
   endsystems with the LISP mapping system, as specified in [RFC6830].






Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


4.2.  Ground to Airborne Traffic Flow

   Here is an example of how traffic flows from the ground to the
   airborne endsystems, when ATS endsystem 1 (ATS-E1) has traffic
   destined to airborne endsystem 1 (A-E1):

   1.  The default route in the ATS region takes the traffic to xTR3
       which is also a Ground/Ground Router (G/G-R).

   2.  xTR3 sends a Map-Request message for the address of A-E1 to the
       LISP mapping system. xTR2 sends a Map-Reply to xTR3 with RLOC set
       to its address which is reachable from xTR3 via the
       internetworking region.

   3.  xTR3 encapsulates the traffic to xTR2 using the RLOC information
       in the Map-Reply message.

   4.  xTR2 decapsulates the traffic coming from xTR3.  The destination
       address of the inner packet belongs to A-E1 which has been
       advertised by the AC-R in the same region.  The traffic is
       therefore forwarded to AC-R2.

   5.  AC-R2 sends the traffic to the Airborne Router of the aircraft
       and the A-R sends it to the endsystem.

4.3.  Airborne to Ground Traffic Flow

   Here is an example of how traffic flows from the airborne endsystems
   to the ground when airborne endsystem 2 (A-E2) has traffic destined
   to ATS endsystem 2 (ATS-E2):

   1.  The default route in the aircraft points to the Airborne Router
       (A-R).  The latter forwards the traffic over the radio link to
       AC-R2.

   2.  The default route on AC-R2 points to xTR2 (also an A/G-R), so the
       traffic is sent from AC-R2 to xTR2.

   3.  xTR2 sends a Map-Request message for the address of ATS-E2 to the
       LISP mapping system. xTR3 sends a Map-Reply to xTR2 with RLOC set
       to its address which is reachable from xTR2 via the
       internetworking region.

   4.  xTR2 encapsulates the traffic to xTR3 using the RLOC information
       in the Map-Reply message.

   5.  xTR3 decapsulates the traffic coming from xTR2, and forwards it
       to ATS-E2.



Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


4.4.  Default forwarding path

   When an xTR is waiting for a Map-Reply for an EID, the xTR does not
   know how to forward the packets destined to that EID.  This means
   that the first packets for ground-to-air traffic would get dropped
   until the Map-Reply is received and a map-cache entry is created.
   However if a device acting as RTR, see
   [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal], has mappings for all EIDs, the xTR
   could use the RTR as default path for packets which have to be
   encapsulated.  How the RTR gets all the mappings is outside the scope
   of this document but one example is the use of LISP pub-sub as
   specified in [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub].  Note that the RTR
   does not have to be a new device, the device which has the MS/MR role
   can also act as RTR.

4.5.  Traffic symmetry

   There is a requirement for air-to-ground traffic and ground-to-air
   traffic to follow the same path.  As described in Section 4.3, the
   path for air-to-ground traffic is controlled by the A-R: the A-R
   decides which radio link to use.  The path for ground-to-air traffic
   is governed by the quality metrics in the radio advertisement from
   the A-R, this is described in Section 4.2.  This means that the
   responsibility for enforcing traffic symmetry lies on the A-R.

5.  Multi-Homing and Mobility

   Multi-homing support builds on the procedures described in
   Section 4:.

   1.  The Airborne Router (A-R) on an aircraft attaches to multiple
       radio regions.  As an example, and referring to Figure 1, the A-R
       attaches to the LDACS and SATCOM regions, via AC-R2 and AC-R1
       respectively.

   2.  Through the preference parameter sent to each region, the A-R has
       control over which path (i.e. radio region) ground to air traffic
       flows.  For example, A-R would indicate preference of the LDACS
       region by choosing a better preference value for the LDACS region
       compared to the preference value sent to the SATCOM region.

   3.  Both xTR1 and xTR2 register the IPv6 EID prefixes with the LISP
       mapping system using merge semantic, as specified in section 4.6
       of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  Since the priority used in the
       LISP registrations is derived from the preference and quality
       parameters, xTR2 would use a lower priority value than xTR1.  In
       this way the LISP mapping system will favour xTR2 (A/G-R for the




Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


       LDACS region) over xTR1 (A/G-R for the SATCOM region), as
       specified by the preference and quality parameters.

   4.  Upon registration the LISP MS/MR will send Map-Notify messages to
       both xTR1 and xTR2, to inform that they have reachability to the
       aircraft's IPv6 EID prefixes.

   5.  Upstream and downstream traffic flows on the same path, i.e. both
       use the LDACS region.

   With mobility, the aircraft could want to switch traffic from one
   radio link to another.  For example while transiting from an area
   covered by LDACS to an area covered by SATCOM, the aircraft could
   desire to switch all traffic from LDACS to SATCOM.  For air-to-ground
   traffic, the A-R has complete control over which radio link to use,
   and will simply select the SATCOM outgoing interface.  For ground-to-
   air traffic:

   1.  The A-R sends a radio advertisement to AC-R1 indicating a better
       preference for the SATCOM link.

   2.  This leads to AC-R1 lowering its quality parameter (e.g.  IGP
       metric) for the IPv6 EID prefixes.

   3.  Upon receiving the better preference value, xTR1 registers the
       IPv6 EID prefixes with the MS/MR, using a lower priority value
       than what xTR2 had used.  Both xTR1 and xTR2 receives Map-Notify
       messages signaling to xTR2 that xTR1 is now the preferred path
       toward the aircraft.

   4.  xTR3 has a map-cache which still points to xTR2, therefore xTR3
       still sends traffic via xTR2. xTR2 sends Solicit-Map-Request
       (SMR) to xTR3 who queries the LISP mapping system again.  This
       results in updating the map-cache on xTR3 which now points to
       XTR1 so ground-to-air traffic now flows on the SATCOM radio link.

6.  Convergence

   When traffic is flowing on a radio link and that link goes down, the
   network has to converge rapidly on the other link available for that
   aircraft.

   For air-to-ground traffic, once the A-R detects the failure it can
   switch immediatly to the other radio link.

   For ground-to-air traffic, when a radio link fails, the corresponding
   AC-R sends a reachability update that the IPv6 EID prefixes are not
   reachable anymore.  This leads to the A/G-R (also an xTR) in that



Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


   region to unregister the IPv6 EID prefixes with the MS/MR.  This
   indicates that the xTR in question has no reachability to the EID
   prefixes.  The notification of the failure should reach all relevant
   xTRs as soon as possible.  For example, if the LDACS radio link
   fails, xTR3 and xTR4 need to learn about the failure so that they
   stop sending traffic via xTR2 and use xTR1 instead.

   In the sub-sections below, we the use of RLOC-probing, Solicit-Map-
   Request, and LISP pub-sub as alternative mechanisms for link failure
   notification.

6.1.  Use of RLOC-probing

   RLOC-probing is described in section 6.3.2 of [RFC6830].

   At regular intervals xTR3 sends Map-Request to xTR2 for the
   aircraft's EID prefixes.  When xTR3 detects via RLOC-probing that it
   can not use xTR2 anymore, it sends a Map-Request for the aircraft's
   EID prefixes.  The corresponding Map-Reply indicates that xTR1 should
   now be used.  The map-cache on xTR3 is updated and air-to-ground
   traffic now goes through xTR1 to use the SATCOM radio link to the
   aircraft.

   The disadvantage of RLOC-probing is that fast detection becomes more
   difficult when the number of EID prefixes is large.

6.2.  Use of Solicit-Map-Request

   Solicit-Map-Request is used as described in Section 5:

   1.  xTR3 is still sending traffic to xTR2 since its map-cache has not
       been updated yet.

   2.  Upon detecting that the link is down, and receiving data plane
       traffic from the ground network, xTR2 sends an SMR to xTR3 that
       sends a Map-Request to update its map-cache.  The corresponding
       Map-Reply indicates that xTR1 should now be used.

   The disadvantage of this approach is that the traffic is delayed
   pending control-plane resolution.  This method also depends on data
   traffic being continuous, in many cases data traffic may be sporadic,
   leading to very slow convergence.

6.3.  Use of LISP pub-sub

   As specified in [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub], ITRs can subscribe
   to changes in the LISP mapping system.  So if all ITRs subscribe to




Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


   the EID prefixes for which they have traffic, the ITRs will be
   notified when there is mapping change.

   In the example where the LDACS radio link fails, when xTR2
   unregisters the EID prefixes with the MS/MR, xTR3 would be notified
   via LISP pub-sub (assuming xTR3 has a map-cache entry for these EID
   prefixes).

   This mechanism provides the fastest convergence at the cost of more
   state in the LISP mapping system.

7.  Security Considerations

   For LISP control-plane message security, please refer to
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec].

8.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA considerations.

9.  Acknowledgements

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [GBL]      Frequentis, "Ground Based LISP for Multilink Operation,
              https://www.icao.int/safety/acp/ACPWGF/CP WG-I 19/WP06
              Ground_Based_LISP 2016-01-14.pdf", January 2016.

   [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]
              Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino,
              F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-
              lisp-nat-traversal-13 (work in progress), September 2017.





Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
              Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
              draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 (work in progress), May
              2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
              Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
              Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13
              (work in progress), September 2017.

   [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub]
              Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Leong, J., Maino, F.,
              Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Barkai, S., and D. Farinacci,
              "Publish-Subscribe mechanism for LISP", draft-
              rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub-00 (work in progress), August
              2017.

Authors' Addresses

   Bernhard Haindl
   Frequentis

   Email: bernhard.haindl@frequentis.com


   Manfred Lindner
   Frequentis

   Email: manfred.lindner@frequentis.com


   Reshad Rahman
   Cisco Systems

   Email: rrahman@cisco.com


   Marc Portoles Comeras
   Cisco Systems

   Email: mportole@cisco.com


   Victor Moreno
   Cisco Systems

   Email: vmoreno@cisco.com



Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        draft-haindl-ground-lisp-atn        September 2017


   Fabio Maino
   Cisco Systems

   Email: fmaino@cisco.com















































Haindl, et al.           Expires March 26, 2018                [Page 14]