Network Working Group                                         L. Iannone
Internet-Draft                                         Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Experimental                                   D. Lewis
Expires: August 29, 2016                             Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                D. Meyer
                                                               V. Fuller
                                                       February 26, 2016

                             LISP EID Block


   This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use
   with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be
   used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint
   identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier)
   addressing space.

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

   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 August 29, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definition of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Block Dimension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  3+3 Allocation Plan  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  Allocation Lifetime  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.  Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     12.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     12.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.  Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

1.  Introduction

   This document directs the IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use
   with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]), LISP Map
   Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT - [RFC6836])
   (or other) mapping systems, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]).

   This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space.

2.  Definition of Terms

   The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to
   the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],
   [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]), but assumes
   that the reader is familiar with the LISP terminology.
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] provides an introduction to the LISP
   technology, including its terminology.

3.  Rationale and Intent

   Discussion within the LISP Working Group led to identify several
   scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block
   brings technical benefits.  Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are

   Early LISP destination detection:  With the current specifications,
         there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain
         destination is in a LISP domain or not without performing a
         LISP mapping lookup.  For instance, if an ITR is sending to all
         types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP
         destinations not in the IPv6 EID block, and LISP destinations
         in the IPv6 EID block) the only way to understand whether or
         not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup
         and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the
         mapping system.  In the meanwhile (waiting the Map-Reply),
         packets may be dropped in order to avoid excessive buffering.

   Avoid penalizing non-LISP traffic:  In certain circumstances it might
         be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to
         natively forward all packets that have not a destination
         address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed
         and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   Traffic Engineering:  In some deployment scenarios it might be
         desirable to apply different traffic engineering policies for
         LISP and non-LISP traffic.  A LISP specific EID block would
         allow improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to
         LISP vs. non-LISP traffic.  In particular, LISP traffic might
         be identified without having to use DPI techniques in order to
         parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple
         inspection of the outer header is sufficient.

   Transition Mechanism:  The existence of a LISP specific EID block may
         prove useful in transition scenarios.  A non-LISP domain would
         ask for an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to
         deploy LISP in its network.  Such allocation will not be
         announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4).
         This approach will allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting
         their already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may
         lead to BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully)
         be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.

   Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure:  As described in the
         previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their
         addressing space, since fragmentation would negatively impact
         the BGP routing infrastructure.  Adopters will use addressing
         space from the EID block, which might be announced in large
         aggregates and in a tightly controlled manner only by proxy

   Is worth mentioning that new use cases can arise in the future, due
   to new and unforeseen scenarios.

   Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block will give a tighter
   control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial
   experimental phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment.

   [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers
   useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 prefix is a perfect match
   of such practice.  The present document follows the guidelines
   provided in [RFC3692], with one exception.  [RFC3692] suggests the
   use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC5226],
   which by definition are not unique.  One of the purposes of the
   present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block.
   The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved
   IPv6 prefix.

4.  Expected use

   Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   block.  Such prefixes will be used for routing and endpoint
   identification inside the site requesting it.  Mappings related to
   such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the
   mapping system in use and registered to one or more Map Server(s).

   The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be
   advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the
   non-LISP inter-domain routing environment.  Interworking between the
   EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to
   [RFC6832] and [RFC7215].

   As the LISP adoption progresses, the EID block may potentially have a
   reduced impact on the BGP routing infrastructure, compared to the
   case of having the same number of adopters using global unicast space
   allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]).  From a short-term perspective,
   the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since
   it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous
   prefixes.  This trend should continue with even lower impact from a
   long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used,
   potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID block

   The EID block will be used only at configuration level, it is
   recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID block in the
   router hardware.  This allows avoiding locking out sites that may
   want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is
   not in the IPv6 EID block.  Furthermore, in the case of a future
   permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the
   experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation

   With the exception of PITR case (described in Section 8) prefixes out
   of the EID block must not be announced in the BGP routing

5.  Block Dimension

   The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32
   prefix.  The reason of such consensus is manifold:

   o  The working group agreed that /32 prefix is sufficiently large to
      cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID
      space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation
      and deployment.

   o  As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta
      Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

      using a /48 sub prefix.  Hence, a /32 prefix appears sufficiently
      large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for
      interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs in the new
      /32 prefix.

   o  A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of
      independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties,
      but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment.

   o  The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix
      allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]).

6.  3+3 Allocation Plan

   This document requests IANA to initially assign a /32 prefix out of
   the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol).

   IANA allocates the requested address space by MMMM/YYYY0 for a
   duration of 3 (three) initial years (through MMMM/YYYY3), with an
   option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until MMMM/
   YYYY6).  By the end of the first period, the IETF will provide a
   decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent assignment
   or to put it back in the free pool (see Section 7 for more

   [RFC Editor: please replace MMMM and all its occurrences in the
   document with the month of publication as RFC.]

   [RFC Editor: please replace YYYY0 and all its occurrences in the
   document with the year of publication as RFC.]

   [RFC Editor: please replace YYYY3 and all its occurrences in the
   document with the year of publication as RFC plus 3 years, e.g., if
   published in 2016 then put 2019.]

   [RFC Editor: please replace YYYY6 and all its occurrences in the
   document with the year of publication as RFC plus 6 years, e.g., if
   published in 2016 then put 2022.]

   In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block
   in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be
   extended for three years (until MMMM/YYYY6) so to give time to the
   IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a
   transition plan.  The transition of the EID block into a permanent
   allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in
   [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine
   appropriate policy for permanent EID block allocation and management.
   Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the
   initial experimental assignment, hence, it is recommended not to
   hard-code in any way the experimental EID block on LISP-capable

   In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block
   experimental use, by MMMM/YYYY3 all temporary prefix allocations in
   such address range must expire and be released, so that the entire
   /32 is returned to the free pool.

   The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 3
   years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in

7.  Allocation Lifetime

   If no explicit action is carried out by the end of the experiment (by
   MMMM/YYYY3) it is automatically considered that there was no
   sufficient interest in having a permanent allocation and the address
   block will be returned to the free pool.

   Otherwise, if the LISP Working Group recognizes that there is value
   in having a permanent allocation then explicit action is needed.

   In order to trigger the process for a permanent allocation a document
   is required.  Such document has to articulate the rationale why a
   permanent allocation would be beneficial.  More specifically, the
   document has to detail the experience gained during experimentation
   and all of the technical benefits provided by the use of a LISP
   specific prefix.  Such technical benefits are expected to lay in the
   scenarios described in Section 3, however, new unforeseen benefits
   may appear during experimentation.  The description should be
   sufficiently articulate so to allow to provide an estimation of what
   should be the size of the permanent allocation.  Note however that,
   as explained in Section 6, it is up to IANA to decide which address
   block will be used as permanent allocation and that such block may be
   different from the temporary experimental allocation.

8.  Routing Considerations

   In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP
   sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large
   aggregate) of the IPv6 EID block could be deployed.  By doing so,
   PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site.
   Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes
   from the IPv6 EID block as normal announcements, applying best
   current practice for traffic engineering and security.

   Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements.  In
   particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain,
   used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any
   specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using
   addresses in the IPv6 EID block.

   For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP
   element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for
   addresses in the IPv6 EID block.  In particular, it is recommended
   that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses
   in any special way.  Doing differently could prevent communication
   between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra-
   domain connectivity.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
   architecture nor in the legacy Internet architecture.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use
   as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as
   outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1.

   This document does not specify any specific value for the requested
   address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global
   Unicast Space.  IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA (Route
   Origin Attestation [RFC6491]), since the Global EID Space will be
   used for routing purposes.

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

               | Attribute            | Value              |
               | Address Block        | 2001:5::/32        |
               | Name                 | EID Space for LISP |
               | RFC                  | [This Document]    |
               | Allocation Date      | 2015               |
               | Termination Date     | MMMM/YYYY3 [1]     |
               | Source               | True [2]           |
               | Destination          | True               |
               | Forwardable          | True               |
               | Global               | True               |
               | Reserved-by-protocol | True [3]           |

    [1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination
    date can be postponed to MMMM/YYYY6. [2] Can be used as a multicast
   source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled

                         Table 1: Global EID Space

   [IANA: Please update the Termination Date and footnote [1] in the
   Special-Purpose Address Registry when the I-D is published as RFC.]

   The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three
   initial years starting in MMMM/YYYY0 (until MMMM/YYYY3), with an
   option to extend it by three years (until MMMM/YYYY6) up on decision
   of the IETF (see Section 6 and Section 7).  Following the policies
   outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by MMMM/YYYY3 decision
   should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment.
   If no explicit action is taken or if the IETF review outcome will be
   that is not worth to have a reserved prefix as global EID space, the
   whole /32 will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address
   Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA.

   Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a
   different document.  Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this
   space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond MMMM/YYYY3
   unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space

11.  Acknowledgments

   Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
   Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez,
   David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston,

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger
   Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job
   Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, for
   their insightful comments.  Thanks as well to all participants to the
   fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list.

   The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13-
   INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project ( and the EIT KIC ICT-
   Labs SOFNETS Project.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

              Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston,
              "LISP EID Block Management Guidelines",
              draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 (work in progress),
              August 2015.

   [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
              Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,

   [RFC3692]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
              Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC3692, January 2004,

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,

   [RFC6831]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
              Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831,
              January 2013, <>.

   [RFC6832]  Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

              "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC6832, January 2013,

   [RFC6833]  Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,

   [RFC6834]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,

   [RFC6835]  Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC6835, January 2013,

   [RFC6836]  Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
              Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
              January 2013, <>.

   [RFC6837]  Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
              Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC6837, January 2013,

12.2.  Informative References

   [BETA]     LISP Beta Network, "".

              L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
              Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future
              Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research,
              Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010.

              Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
              Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
              progress), April 2015.

              B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure,

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

              "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier
              Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on
              Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture
              (MobiArch'07) , August 2007.

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056,
              February 2001, <>.

   [RFC6491]  Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public
              Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA",
              RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012,

   [RFC7215]  Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
              Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
              Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215,
              April 2014, <>.

Appendix A.  Document Change Log

   [RFC Editor: Please remove this section on publication as RFC]

   Version 13 Posted MMMM 2016.

   o  Changed I-D type from "Informational" to "Experimental" as
      requested by A. Retana during IESG review.

   o  Dropped the appendix "LISP Terminology"; replaced by pointer to
      the LISP Introduction document.

   o  Added Section 7 to clarify the process after the 3 years
      experimental allocation.

   o  Modified the dates, introducing variables, so to allow RFC Editor
      to easily update dates by publication as RFC.

   Version 12 Posted May 2015.

   o  Fixed typos and references as suggested by the Gen-ART and OPS-DIR

   Version 11 Posted April 2015.

   o  In Section 4, deleted contradictory text on EID prefix
      advertisement in non-LISP inter-domain routing environments.

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   o  In Section 3 deleted the "Avoid excessive strech" bullet, because

   o  Deleted last bullet of the list in Section 3 because retundant
      w.r.t. global content of the document.

   Version 10 Posted January 2015.

   o  Keep alive version

   Version 09 Posted July 2014.

   o  Few Editorial modifications as requested by D. Saucez, as
      shepherd, during the write up of the document.

   o  Allocation date postponed to beginning 2015, as suggested by D.

   Version 08 Posted January 2014.

   o  Modified Section 4 as suggested by G. Houston.

   Version 07 Posted November 2013.

   o  Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the
      consensus reached during IETF 88th.

   Version 06 Posted October 2013.

   o  Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with
      respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran.

   o  Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested
      by J. Curran) and the TE scenario.  The other scenarios have been
      also edited.

   o  Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan
      as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF.

   o  Section 10 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan.

   o  Moved Section 11 at the end of the document.

   o  Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix.

   Version 05 Posted September 2013.

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   o  No changes.

   Version 04 Posted February 2013.

   o  Added Table 1 as requested by IANA.

   o  Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested
      by various comments during IETF Last Call.

   o  Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4
      as requested by B. Carpenter.

   Version 03 Posted November 2012.

   o  General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B.

   o  Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B.

   o  Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque

   o  Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with
      "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent
      with [RFC6833].  Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the

   Version 02 Posted April 2012.

   o  Fixed typos, nits, references.

   o  Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies.

   Version 01 Posted October 2011.

   o  Added Section 5.

   Version 00 Posted July 2011.

   o  Updated section "IANA Considerations"

   o  Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block
      allocation is useful.

   o  Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and
      use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block.

Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               LISP EID Block                February 2016

   o  Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating
      address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to
      accommodate future EID space requests.

   o  Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not
      running LISP deal with the requested address block.

   o  Added the present section to keep track of changes.

   o  Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt.

Authors' Addresses

   Luigi Iannone
   Telecom ParisTech


   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems, Inc.


   David Meyer


   Vince Fuller


Iannone, et al.          Expires August 29, 2016               [Page 15]