<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
    which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY ieee_802_1Q SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml6/reference.IEEE.802.1Q_2014.xml">
]>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
    please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
    (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
    (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06" ipr="trust200902">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
    ipr values: trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902,
       or pre5378Trust200902
    you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
    they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the 
        full title is longer than 39 characters -->

    <title>LISP Generic Protocol Extension</title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->

    <author fullname="Fabio Maino" initials="F." role="editor" surname="Maino">
      <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <code>95134</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>fmaino@cisco.com</email>

        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="John Lemon" initials="J." surname="Lemon">
      <organization>Broadcom</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>270 Innovation Drive</street>

          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <code>95134</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>john.lemon@broadcom.com</email>

        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Puneet Agarwal" initials="P." surname="Agarwal">
      <organization>Innovium</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

          <city/>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>puneet@acm.org</email>

        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Darrel Lewis" initials="D." surname="Lewis">
      <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <email>darlewis@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Michael Smith" initials="M." surname="Smith">
      <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <email>michsmit@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="20" month="September" year="2018"/>

    <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill 
        in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill 
	 in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is 
	 necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the 
	 purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally sufficient to 
	 specify just the year. -->

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>General</area>

    <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
        IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
	 If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
        which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>security</keyword>

    <keyword>policy</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
        files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
        output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
        keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation
      Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to support
      multi-protocol encapsulation.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="Introduction" title="Introduction">
      <t>The LISP Data-Plane is defined in <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>. It specifies an encapsulation
      format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets (henceforth jointly referred to
      as IP) in a LISP header and outer UDP/IP transport.</t>

      <t>The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being
      encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only IP
      packet payloads. Other protocols, most notably Virtual eXtensible Local
      Area Network (VXLAN) <xref target="RFC7348"/> (which defines a similar
      header format to LISP), are used to encapsulate Layer-2 (L2) protocols
      such as Ethernet.</t>

      <t>This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>, to indicate the inner
      protocol, enabling the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other
      desired protocol all the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP
      deployments.</t>

      <t>A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the
      presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field, when
      present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing and
      map-versioning features. The two features are still available, albeit
      with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.</t>

      <t>LISP-GPE MAY also be used to extend the LISP Data-Plane header, that
      has allocated all by defining a Next Protocol "shim" header that
      implements new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header. As
      an example, the use of the Network Service Header (NSH) with LISP-GPE,
      can be considered an extension to add support in the Data-Plane for
      Network Service Chaining functionalities. </t>

      <section anchor="Conventions" title="Conventions">
        <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only
        when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="Abbreviations" title="Definition of Terms">
        <t>This document uses terms already defined in <xref
        target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="LISP_header"
             title="LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions">
      <t>As described in <xref target="Introduction"/>, the LISP header has no
      protocol identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried.
      Because of this, LISP is limited to carrying IP payloads.</t>

      <t>The LISP header <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/> contains a
      series of flags (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field
      and an instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide
      flexibility to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag
      bit 5 is the last reserved bit in the LISP header.</t>

      <figure align="left" anchor="LISP_Header" title="LISP Header">
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
       
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           ]]></artwork>
      </figure>
    </section>

    <section anchor="LISP_GPE"
             title="Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)">
      <t>This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to
      support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit and
      the definition of a Next Protocol field. This is shown in <xref
      target="GPE_Header"> </xref> and described below.</t>

      <figure align="left" anchor="GPE_Header" title="LISP-GPE Header">
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
       
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|        Nonce/Map-Version      | Next Protocol |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           ]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t/>

      <t><list style="hanging">
          <t hangText="P-Bit:">Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol
          bit.</t>

          <t hangText="">If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header conforms to
          the definition in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>.</t>

          <t>The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next
          Protocol field.</t>

          <t hangText=""/>

          <t hangText="Nonce/Map-Version:">In <xref
          target="I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis"/>, LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the
          first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to support map-
          versioning. These are all optional capabilities that are indicated
          in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits respectively.</t>

          <t>When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the
          middle 16 bits (i.e., encoded in 16 bits, not 24 bits). Note that
          the E-bit only has meaning when the N-bit is set.</t>

          <t>When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version fields use
          the middle 16 bits: the Source Map-Version uses the high-order 8
          bits, and the Dest Map-Version uses the low-order 8 bits.</t>

          <t>When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both
          0, the middle 16-bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored
          on receipt.</t>

          <t>The encoding of the Nonce field in LISP-GPE, compared with the
          one used in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/> for the LISP
          data plane encapsulation, reduces the length of the nonce from 24 to
          16 bits. As per <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>, Ingress
          Tunnel Routers (ITRs) are required to generate different nonces when
          sending to different Routing Locators (RLOCs), but the same nonce
          can be used for a period of time when encapsulating to the same
          Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). The use of 16 bits nonces still allows
          an ITR to determine to and from reachability for up to 64k RLOCs at
          the same time.</t>

          <t>Similarly, the encoding of the Source and Dest Map-Version
          fields, compared with <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>, is
          reduced from 12 to 8 bits. This still allows to associate 256
          different versions to each Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator
          (EID-to-RLOC) mapping to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about
          modifications of the mapping.</t>

          <t hangText="Next Protocol:">The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit
          word are used to carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field
          contains the protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.</t>

          <t>This document defines the following Next Protocol values:</t>

          <t><list style="hanging">
              <t hangText="0x1 :">IPv4</t>

              <t hangText="0x2 :">IPv6</t>

              <t hangText="0x3 :">Ethernet</t>

              <t hangText="0x4 :">Network Service Header (NSH) <xref
              target="RFC8300"/></t>
            </list></t>

          <t hangText="">The values are tracked in an IANA registry as
          described in <xref target="Next_protocol"/>.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t/>

      <section anchor="Transport_interactions"
               title="Payload Specific Transport Interactions">
        <t>To ensure that protocols that are encapsulated in LISP-GPE will
        work well from a transport interaction perspective, the specification
        of a new encapsulated payload MUST contain an analysis of how LISP-GPE
        SHOULD deal with outer UDP Checksum, DSCP mapping, and Explicit
        Congestion Notification (ECN) bits whenever they apply to the new
        encapsulated payload. </t>

        <t>For IP payloads, section 5.3 of <xref
        target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/> specifies how to handle UDP
        Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP checksum usage
        guidelines in section 3.4 of <xref target="RFC8085"/> when it is
        desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. Each new
        encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be
        accompanied by a similar analysis. </t>

        <t>Encapsulated payloads may have a priority field that may or may not
        be mapped to the DSCP field of the outer IP header (part of Type of
        Service in IPv4 or Traffic Class in IPv6). Such new encapsulated
        payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be accompanied by an
        analysis similar to the one performed in Section 3.1.1 of this
        document for Ethernet payloads. </t>

        <t>Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification
        mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN
        field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP-GPE,
        MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from <xref
        target="RFC6040"/>. </t>

        <t>The rest of this section specifies payload specific transport
        interactions considerations for the two new LISP-GPE encapsulated
        payloads specified in this document: Ethernet and NSH. </t>

        <section anchor="Ethernet"
                 title=" Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads ">
          <t>The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of <xref
          target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/> apply to Ethernet Encapsulated
          Payloads. Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum
          usage guidelines in section 3.4 of <xref target="RFC8085"/> when it
          is desirable to protect UDP, LISP and Ethernet headers against
          corruption. </t>

          <t>When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
          802.1Q <xref target="IEEE.802.1Q_2014"/> priority code point (PCP)
          field MAY be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of
          Service field in the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the
          'Traffic Class' field. </t>

          <t>When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
          header 802.1Q <xref target="IEEE.802.1Q_2014"/> VLAN Identifier
          (VID) MAY be mapped to, or used to determine the LISP Instance
          IDentifier (IID) field.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="NSH"
                 title="Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH Encapsulated Payloads">
          <t>The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of <xref
          target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/> apply to NSH Encapsulated
          Payloads. Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum
          usage guidelines in section 3.4 of <xref target="RFC8085"/> when it
          is desirable to protect UDP, LISP, and NSH headers against
          corruption. </t>

          <t>When a LISP-GPE router performs an NSH encapsulation, DSCP and
          ECN values MAY be mapped as specified for the Next Protocol
          encapsulated by NSH (namely IPv4, IPv6 and Ethernet).</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Compatibility" title="Backward Compatibility">
      <t>LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to
      LISP.</t>

      <t>The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane
      capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple
      Data-Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in <xref
      target="RFC8060"/>. Other mechanisms can be used, including static
      ETR/ITR (xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this
      document.</t>

      <t>When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the
      P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in
      this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated that
      it supports this specification because such a router would ignore the
      P-bit (as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>) and so
      would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing
      significant errors.</t>

      <t>A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets (that have the
      P-bit set to 1) to a non-LISP-GPE capable router.</t>

      <section anchor="MULTIDATAPLANE"
               title="Use of &quot;Multiple Data-Planes&quot; LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities">
        <t><xref target="RFC8060">LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)</xref>
        defines the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by
        an ETR in a Map-Reply to encode the encapsulation formats supported by
        a given RLOC. In this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability
        to support LISP-GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC
        of that ETR.</t>

        <t>The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as
        defined in <xref target="RFC8060"/>, is a bitmap whose bits are set to
        one (1) to represent support for each Data-Plane encapsulation. The
        values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in <xref
        target="MDP_encap_registry"/>.</t>

        <t>This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the
        "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as:</t>

        <t><list style="hanging">
            <t hangText="g-Bit:">The RLOCs listed in the Address Family
            Identifier (AFI) encoded addresses in the next longword can accept
            LISP-GPE (Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using
            destination UDP port 4341</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t/>

      <section anchor="Next_protocol" title="LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry">
        <t>IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".
        These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are
        defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards Action
        <xref target="RFC8126"/>. The protocols that are being assigned values
        do not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols.</t>

        <texttable>
          <ttcol>Next Protocol</ttcol>

          <ttcol>Description</ttcol>

          <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

          <c>0</c>

          <c>Reserved</c>

          <c>This Document</c>

          <c>1</c>

          <c>IPv4</c>

          <c>This Document</c>

          <c>2</c>

          <c>IPv6</c>

          <c>This Document</c>

          <c>3</c>

          <c>Ethernet</c>

          <c>This Document</c>

          <c>4</c>

          <c>NSH</c>

          <c>This Document</c>

          <c>5..255</c>

          <c>Unassigned</c>

          <c/>
        </texttable>
      </section>

      <section anchor="MDP_encap_registry"
               title="Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry">
        <t>IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes
        Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an
        ETR in the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type defined in <xref
        target="RFC8060"/>. The bitmap is the 3rd 32-bit word of the Multiple
        Data-Planes LCAF type. Each bit of the bitmap represents a Data-Plane
        Encapsulation. New values are assigned via Standards Action <xref
        target="RFC8126"/>.</t>

        <t>Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bit 24 (g-bit) to
        LISP-GPE. Bits 25-31 are assigned in <xref target="RFC8060"/>).</t>

        <t/>

        <texttable>
          <ttcol>Bit Position</ttcol>

          <ttcol>Bit Name</ttcol>

          <ttcol>Assigned to</ttcol>

          <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>

          <c>0-23</c>

          <c/>

          <c>Unassigned</c>

          <c/>

          <c>24</c>

          <c>g</c>

          <c>LISP Generic Protocol Extension (LISP-GPE)</c>

          <c>This Document</c>

          <c>25</c>

          <c>U</c>

          <c>Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8060"/></c>

          <c>26</c>

          <c>G</c>

          <c>Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (GENEVE)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8060"/></c>

          <c>27</c>

          <c>N</c>

          <c>Network Virtualization - Generic Routing Encapsulation
          (NV-GRE)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8060"/></c>

          <c>28</c>

          <c>v</c>

          <c>VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension (VXLAN-GPE)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8060"/></c>

          <c>29</c>

          <c>V</c>

          <c>Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8060"/></c>

          <c>30</c>

          <c>l</c>

          <c>Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8060"/></c>

          <c>31</c>

          <c>L</c>

          <c>Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)</c>

          <c><xref target="RFC8060"/></c>
        </texttable>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
      considerations and mitigation techniques documented in <xref
      target="RFC7835"/>.</t>

      <t>The Echo Nonce Algorithm described in <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/> relies on the nonce to detect
      reachability from ITR to ETR. In LISP-GPE the use of a 16-bit nonce,
      compared with the 24-bit nonce used in LISP, increases the probability
      of an off-path attacker to correctly guess the nonce and force the ITR
      to believe that a non-reachable RLOC is reachable. However, the use of
      common anti-spoofing mechanisms such as uRPF prevents this form of
      attack.</t>

      <t>LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is
      subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the
      packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity
      protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination with
      LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from on-path
      attackers.</t>

      <t>With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and
      traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
      encapsulated.</t>
    </section>

    <!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements"
             title="Acknowledgements and Contributors">
      <t>A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
      detailed review.</t>

      <t>This Workking Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe;
      the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their
      respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of this
      document would like to thank and recognize them and their contributions.
      These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable concepts and
      content for this document's creation.</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc.</t>

          <t>Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc.</t>

          <t>Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc.</t>

          <t>Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc.</t>

          <t>Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc.</t>

          <t>Larry Kreeger</t>

          <t>John Lemon, Broadcom</t>

          <t>Puneet Agarwal, Innovium</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** v-->

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
    1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
    2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
       (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

    Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
    If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
    directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
    with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
    filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>

      &ieee_802_1Q;

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <!-- Here we use entities that we defined at the beginning. -->

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6040"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7348"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7835"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8060"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8085"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8300"?>
    </references>

    <!-- Change Log

v00.01 2017-01-24  FM    Renamed as draft-ietf-lisp-gpe to reflect WG adoption 
v00.02 2017-12-12  FM    Changed to reflect RFC6830bis header format
-->

    <!--v00.03 2017-12-14  FM    Changed Intended Status to Standard Track
v01.00 2018-03-05  FM    Removed reference to GBP draft (informational) and fixed paulq email address-->

    <!--v02.00 2018-03-22  FM    Updated Section 4. Backward Compatibilty to be consistent with RFC8061 and addressed WG chair comments-->

    <!--v04.00 2018-07-19  FM    Addressed WG chair editorial comments-->

    <!--v05.00 2018-08-15  FM    Addressed rtgdir comments -->

    <!--v06.00 2018-09-20  FM    Addressed secdir, tsvart + Mirja comments. Some tsvart comments are still to be resolved-->
  </back>
</rfc>
