Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Arango
Request for Comments: 8059 S. Venaas
Category: Experimental Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 I. Kouvelas
Arista Networks Inc.
D. Farinacci
lispers.net
January 2017
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Arango
Request for Comments: 8059 S. Venaas
Category: Experimental Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 I. Kouvelas
Arista Networks Inc.
D. Farinacci
lispers.net
January 2017
PIM Join Attributes for Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Environments
定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）环境的PIM连接属性
Abstract
摘要
This document defines two PIM Join/Prune attributes that support the construction of multicast distribution trees where the root and receivers are located in different Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) sites. These attributes allow the receiver site to select between unicast and multicast underlying transport and to convey the RLOC (Routing Locator) address of the receiver ETR (Egress Tunnel Router) to the control plane of the root ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router).
本文档定义了两个PIM连接/修剪属性，它们支持多播分发树的构建，其中根和接收器位于不同的定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）站点。这些属性允许接收方站点在单播和多播基础传输之间进行选择，并将接收方ETR（出口隧道路由器）的RLOC（路由定位器）地址传送到根ITR（入口隧道路由器）的控制平面。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为检查、实验实施和评估而发布的。
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
本文档为互联网社区定义了一个实验协议。本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8059.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8059.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2017 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PIM Join/Prune Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. The Transport Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Transport Attribute Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Using the Transport Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Receiver ETR RLOC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Receiver RLOC Attribute Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Using the Receiver RLOC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PIM Join/Prune Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. The Transport Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Transport Attribute Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Using the Transport Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Receiver ETR RLOC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Receiver RLOC Attribute Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Using the Receiver RLOC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The construction of multicast distribution trees where the root and receivers are located in different LISP sites [RFC6830] is defined in [RFC6831]. Creation of (root-EID,G) state in the root site requires that unicast LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune messages be sent from an ETR on the receiver site to an ITR on the root site. The term "EID" is short for "Endpoint ID".
[RFC6831]中定义了根和接收器位于不同LISP站点[RFC6830]的多播分发树的构造。在根站点中创建（root EID，G）状态需要将单播LISP封装的加入/删减消息从接收方站点上的ETR发送到根站点上的ITR。术语“EID”是“端点ID”的缩写。
[RFC6831] specifies that (root-EID,G) data packets are to be LISP-encapsulated into (root-RLOC,G) multicast packets. However, a wide deployment of multicast connectivity between LISP sites is unlikely to happen any time soon. In fact, some implementations are initially focusing on unicast transport with head-end replication between root and receiver sites.
[RFC6831]指定（根EID，G）数据包将被LISP封装到（根RLOC，G）多播数据包中。然而，在LISP站点之间广泛部署多播连接不太可能很快实现。事实上，一些实现最初侧重于单播传输，在根站点和接收器站点之间进行前端复制。
The unicast LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message specifies the (root-EID,G) state that needs to be established in the root site, but conveys nothing about the receiver's capability or desire to use multicast as the underlying transport. This document specifies a Join/Prune attribute that allows the receiver ETR to select the desired transport.
单播LISP封装的Join/Prune消息指定了需要在根站点中建立的（根EID，G）状态，但没有传达任何关于接收方将多播用作底层传输的能力或愿望的信息。本文档指定了一个连接/删除属性，该属性允许接收方ETR选择所需的传输。
The term "transport" in this document is intentionally somewhat vague. Currently, it is used just to indicate whether multicast or head-end replication is used; this means that the outer destination address is either a unicast or multicast address. Future documents may specify how other types of delivery, encapsulation, or underlay are used.
本文件中的“运输”一词故意含糊不清。目前，它仅用于指示是否使用多播或头端复制；这意味着外部目标地址是单播或多播地址。未来的文档可能会指定如何使用其他类型的交付、封装或参考底图。
Knowledge of the receiver ETR's RLOC address is essential to the control plane of the root ITR. The RLOC address determines the downstream destination for unicast head-end replication and identifies the receiver ETR that needs to be notified should the root ITR of the distribution tree move to another site. The root ITR can change when the source EID is roaming to another LISP site.
了解接收器ETR的RLOC地址对于根ITR的控制平面至关重要。RLOC地址确定单播头端复制的下游目的地，并标识在分发树的根ITR移动到另一个站点时需要通知的接收器ETR。当源EID漫游到另一个LISP站点时，根ITR可能会更改。
Service providers may implement unicast reverse path forwarding (uRPF) policies requiring that the outer source address of the LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message be the address of the receiver ETR's core-facing interface used to physically transmit the message. However, due to policy and load-balancing considerations, the outer source address may not be the RLOC on which the receiver site wishes to receive a particular flow. This document specifies a Join/Prune attribute that conveys the appropriate receiver ETR's RLOC address to the control plane of the root ITR.
服务提供商可实施单播反向路径转发（uRPF）策略，要求LISP封装的加入/删减消息的外部源地址是用于物理传输消息的接收器ETR面向核心接口的地址。然而，由于策略和负载平衡考虑，外部源地址可能不是接收方站点希望在其上接收特定流的RLOC。本文档指定一个连接/删除属性，该属性将适当的接收方ETR的RLOC地址传送到根ITR的控制平面。
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC6830], such as EID, RLOC, ITR, and ETR.
本文档使用[RFC6830]中定义的术语，如EID、RLOC、ITR和ETR。
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].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
PIM Join/Prune attributes are defined in [RFC5384] by introducing a new Encoded-Source type that, in addition to the Join/Prune source, can carry multiple Type-Length-Value (TLV) attributes. These attributes apply to the individual Join/Prune sources on which they are stored.
[RFC5384]中通过引入新的编码源类型定义了PIM连接/修剪属性，除了连接/修剪源之外，该类型还可以携带多类型长度值（TLV）属性。这些属性应用于存储它们的各个联接/修剪源。
The attributes defined in this document conform to the format of the encoding type defined in [RFC5384]. The attributes would typically be the same for all the sources in the Join/Prune message. Hence, we RECOMMEND using the hierarchical Join/Prune attribute scheme defined in [RFC7887]. This hierarchical system allows attributes to be conveyed in the Upstream Neighbor Address field, thus enabling the efficient application of a single attribute instance to all the sources in the Join/Prune message.
本文件中定义的属性符合[RFC5384]中定义的编码类型格式。对于Join/Prune消息中的所有源，属性通常是相同的。因此，我们建议使用[RFC7887]中定义的分层连接/修剪属性方案。这种分层系统允许在上游邻居地址字段中传递属性，从而能够将单个属性实例有效地应用于Join/Prune消息中的所有源。
LISP Tunnel Routers (xTRs) do not exchange PIM Hello Messages, and hence no Hello option is defined to negotiate support for these attributes. Systems that support unicast head-end replication are assumed to support these attributes.
LISP隧道路由器（XTR）不交换PIM Hello消息，因此没有定义Hello选项来协商对这些属性的支持。假设支持单播头端复制的系统支持这些属性。
It is essential that a mechanism be provided by which the desired transport can be conveyed by receiver sites. Root sites with multicast connectivity will want to leverage multicast replication. However, not all receiver sites can be expected to have multicast connectivity. It is thus desirable that root sites be prepared to support (root-EID,G) state with a mixture of multicast and unicast output state. This document specifies a Join/Prune attribute that allows the receiver to select the desired underlying transport.
必须提供一种机制，通过该机制，接收站点可以传送所需的传输。具有多播连接的根站点将希望利用多播复制。然而，并非所有的接收站点都具有多播连接。因此，希望根站点准备好支持具有多播和单播输出状态的混合的（根EID，G）状态。此文档指定一个连接/删除属性，该属性允许接收方选择所需的底层传输。
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|E| Type = 5 | Length = 1 | Transport |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|E| Type = 5 | Length = 1 | Transport |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
F bit: The Transitive bit. Specifies whether the attribute is transitive or non-transitive. MUST be set to zero. This attribute is ALWAYS non-transitive.
F位：传递位。指定属性是可传递的还是不可传递的。必须设置为零。此属性始终是不可传递的。
E bit: End-of-Attributes bit. Specifies whether this attribute is the last. Set to zero if there are more attributes. Set to 1 if this is the last attribute.
E位：属性位的结尾。指定此属性是否为最后一个属性。如果有更多属性，则设置为零。如果这是最后一个属性，则设置为1。
Type: The Transport Attribute type is 5.
类型：传输属性类型为5。
Length: The length of the Transport Attribute value. MUST be set to 1.
长度：传输属性值的长度。必须设置为1。
Transport: The type of transport being requested. Set to zero for multicast. Set to 1 for unicast. The values from 2 to 255 may be assigned in the future.
传输：请求的传输类型。为多播设置为零。单播设置为1。将来可能会分配2到255之间的值。
Hierarchical Join/Prune attribute instances [RFC7887] SHOULD be used when the same Transport Attribute is to be applied to all the sources within the Join/Prune message or all the sources within a group set. The root ITR MUST accept Transport Attributes in the Upstream Neighbor Encoded-Unicast address, Encoded-Group addresses, and Encoded-Source addresses.
当将相同的传输属性应用于Join/Prune消息中的所有源或组集中的所有源时，应使用分层连接/修剪属性实例[RFC7887]。根ITR必须接受上游邻居编码单播地址、编码组地址和编码源地址中的传输属性。
There MUST NOT be more than one Transport Attribute within the same encoded address. If an encoded address has more than one instance of the attribute, the root ITR MUST discard all affected Join/Prune sources. The root ITR MUST also discard all affected Join/Prune sources if the Transport Attribute value is unknown.
同一编码地址内不得有多个传输属性。如果编码地址具有多个属性实例，则根ITR必须放弃所有受影响的联接/修剪源。如果传输属性值未知，则根ITR还必须放弃所有受影响的加入/删除源。
When a receiver ETR requests unicast head-end replication for a given (root-EID,G) entry, the PIM control plane of the root ITR must maintain an outgoing interface list ("oif-list") entry for the receiver ETR and its corresponding RLOC address. This allows the root ITR to perform unicast LISP-encapsulation of multicast data packets to each and every receiver ETR that has requested unicast head-end replication.
当接收器ETR为给定（根EID，G）条目请求单播头端复制时，根ITR的PIM控制平面必须为接收器ETR及其相应的RLOC地址维护传出接口列表（“oif列表”）条目。这允许根ITR对已请求单播头端复制的每个接收器ETR执行多播数据包的单播LISP封装。
The PIM control plane of the root ITR could potentially determine the RLOC address of the receiver ETR from the outer source address field of the LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message. However, receiver ETRs are subject to uRPF checks by the network providers on each core-facing interface. The outer source address must therefore be the RLOC of the core-facing interface used to physically transmit the LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message. Due to policy and load-balancing considerations, that may not be the RLOC on which the receiver site wishes to receive a particular flow. This document specifies a Join/Prune attribute that conveys the appropriate receiver RLOC address to the PIM control plane of the root ITR.
The PIM control plane of the root ITR could potentially determine the RLOC address of the receiver ETR from the outer source address field of the LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message. However, receiver ETRs are subject to uRPF checks by the network providers on each core-facing interface. The outer source address must therefore be the RLOC of the core-facing interface used to physically transmit the LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message. Due to policy and load-balancing considerations, that may not be the RLOC on which the receiver site wishes to receive a particular flow. This document specifies a Join/Prune attribute that conveys the appropriate receiver RLOC address to the PIM control plane of the root ITR.translate error, please retry
To support root-EID mobility, receiver ETRs must also be tracked by the LISP control plane of the root ITR, regardless of the underlying transport. When the root-EID moves to a new root ITR in a different LISP site, the receiver ETRs do not know the root-EID has moved and therefore do not know the RLOC of the new root ITR. This is true for both unicast and multicast transport modes. The new root ITR does not have any receiver ETR state. Therefore, it is the responsibility
为了支持根EID移动性，无论底层传输如何，根ITR的LISP控制平面也必须跟踪接收器ETR。当根EID移动到不同LISP站点中的新根ITR时，接收方ETR不知道根EID已移动，因此不知道新根ITR的RLOC。单播和多播传输模式都是如此。新根ITR没有任何接收器ETR状态。因此，这是我们的责任
of the old root ITR to inform the receiver ETRs that the root-EID has moved. When the old root ITR detects that the root-EID has moved, it sends a LISP Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) message to each receiver ETR. The receiver ETRs do a mapping database lookup to retrieve the RLOC of the new root ITR. The old root ITR detects that the root-EID has moved when it receives a Map-Notify from the Map-Server. The transmission of the Map-Notify is triggered when the new root ITR registers the root-EID [EID-MOBILITY]. When a receiver ETR determines that the root ITR has changed, it will send a LISP-encapsulated PIM prune message to the old root xTR and a LISP-encapsulated PIM join message to the new root xTR.
通知接收方ETRs根EID已移动。当旧根ITR检测到根EID已移动时，它会向每个接收器ETR发送LISP请求映射请求（SMR）消息。接收器ETR执行映射数据库查找以检索新根ITR的RLOC。旧的根ITR在收到来自映射服务器的映射通知时检测到根EID已移动。当新根ITR注册根EID[EID-MOBILITY]时，将触发Map Notify的传输。当接收器ETR确定根ITR已更改时，它将向旧根xTR发送LISP封装的PIM prune消息，并向新根xTR发送LISP封装的PIM join消息。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|E| Type = 6 | Length | Addr Family | Receiver RLOC
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|E| Type = 6 | Length | Addr Family | Receiver RLOC
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
F bit: The Transitive bit. Specifies whether this attribute is transitive or non-transitive. MUST be set to zero. This attribute is ALWAYS non-transitive.
F位：传递位。指定此属性是可传递的还是不可传递的。必须设置为零。此属性始终是不可传递的。
E bit: End-of-Attributes bit. Specifies whether this attribute is the last. Set to zero if there are more attributes. Set to 1 if this is the last attribute.
E位：属性位的结尾。指定此属性是否为最后一个属性。如果有更多属性，则设置为零。如果这是最后一个属性，则设置为1。
Type: The Receiver RLOC Attribute type is 6.
类型：接收方RLOC属性类型为6。
Length: The length in octets of the attribute value. MUST be set to the length in octets of the receiver RLOC address plus 1 octet to account for the Address Family field.
长度：属性值的长度（以八位字节为单位）。必须设置为接收器RLOC地址的长度（以八位字节为单位）加上1个八位字节，以说明地址族字段。
Addr Family: The PIM Address Family of the receiver RLOC as defined in [RFC7761].
Addr系列：在[RFC7761]中定义的接收器RLOC的PIM地址系列。
Receiver RLOC: The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to receiver the unicast-encapsulated flow.
Receiver RLOC：接收方ETR希望接收单播封装流的RLOC地址。
Hierarchical Join/Prune attribute instances [RFC7887] SHOULD be used when the same Receiver RLOC Attribute is to be applied to all the sources within the message or all the sources within a group set. The root ITR MUST accept Transport Attributes in the Upstream Neighbor Encoded-Unicast address, Encoded-Group addresses, and Encoded-Source addresses.
当将同一接收方RLOC属性应用于消息中的所有源或组集中的所有源时，应使用分层联接/修剪属性实例[RFC7887]。根ITR必须接受上游邻居编码单播地址、编码组地址和编码源地址中的传输属性。
There MUST NOT be more than one Receiver RLOC Attribute within the same encoded address. If an encoded address has more than one instance of the attribute, the root ITR MUST discard all affected Join/Prune sources. The root ITR MUST also discard all affected Join/Prune sources if the address family is unknown or the address length is incorrect for the specified address family.
同一编码地址内不得有多个Receiver RLOC属性。如果编码地址具有多个属性实例，则根ITR必须放弃所有受影响的联接/修剪源。如果地址族未知或指定地址族的地址长度不正确，则根ITR还必须放弃所有受影响的联接/删除源。
Security of Join/Prune attributes is only guaranteed by the security of the PIM packet. The attributes specified herein do not enhance or diminish the privacy or authenticity of a Join/Prune message. A site that legitimately or maliciously sends and delivers a Join/Prune message to another site will equally be able to append these and any other attributes it wishes. See [RFC5384] for general security considerations for Join/Prune attributes.
连接/删除属性的安全性仅由PIM数据包的安全性保证。此处指定的属性不会增强或降低加入/删除消息的隐私性或真实性。合法或恶意地向另一个站点发送并传递加入/删减消息的站点同样能够附加这些属性和它希望附加的任何其他属性。请参阅[RFC5384]了解加入/删除属性的一般安全注意事项。
Two new PIM Join/Prune attribute types have been assigned: value 5 for the Transport Attribute and value 6 for the Receiver RLOC Attribute.
已分配两种新的PIM联接/修剪属性类型：传输属性的值5和接收器RLOC属性的值6。
The "PIM Join/Prune Transport Types" registry has been created for the Join/Prune Transport attribute. The registration policy is IETF Review [RFC5226], and the values are in the range 0-255. This document assigns value 0 for multicast and value 1 for unicast.
“PIM联接/修剪传输类型”注册表已为联接/修剪传输属性创建。注册策略为IETF Review[RFC5226]，值在0-255范围内。本文档为多播分配值0，为单播分配值1。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5384] Boers, A., Wijnands, I., and E. Rosen, "The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format", RFC 5384, DOI 10.17487/RFC5384, November 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5384>.
[RFC5384]Boers，A.，Wijnands，I.，和E.Rosen，“协议独立多播（PIM）连接属性格式”，RFC 5384，DOI 10.17487/RFC5384，2008年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5384>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6830]Farinaci，D.，Fuller，V.，Meyer，D.，和D.Lewis，“定位器/身份分离协议（LISP）”，RFC 6830，DOI 10.17487/RFC6830，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6831]Farinaci，D.，Meyer，D.，Zwiebel，J.，和S.Venaas，“用于多播环境的定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）”，RFC 6831，DOI 10.17487/RFC6831，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I., Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC7761]Fenner，B.，Handley，M.，Holbrook，H.，Kouvelas，I.，Parekh，R.，Zhang，Z.，和L.Zheng，“协议独立多播-稀疏模式（PIM-SM）：协议规范（修订版）”，STD 83，RFC 7761，DOI 10.17487/RFC7761，2016年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC7887] Venaas, S., Arango, J., and I. Kouvelas, "Hierarchical Join/Prune Attributes", RFC 7887, DOI 10.17487/RFC7887, June 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7887>.
[RFC7887]Venaas，S.，Arango，J.，和I.Kouvelas，“层次连接/修剪属性”，RFC 7887，DOI 10.17487/RFC7887，2016年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7887>.
[EID-MOBILITY] Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a Unified Control Plane", Work in Progress, draft-portoles-lisp-eid-mobility-01, October 2016.
[EID-MOBILITY]Portoles Comeras，M.，Ashtaputre，V.，Moreno，V.，Maino，F.，和D.Farinaci，“使用统一控制平面的LISP L2/L3 EID移动”，正在进行的工作，草稿-Portoles-LISP-EID-MOBILITY-01，2016年10月。
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，DOI 10.17487/RFC5226，2008年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Jesus Arango Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 United States of America
Jesus Arango Cisco Systems美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞塔斯曼大道170号，邮编95134
Email: jearango@cisco.com
Email: jearango@cisco.com
Stig Venaas Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 United States of America
美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞塔斯曼大道170号，邮编95134
Email: stig@cisco.com
Email: stig@cisco.com
Isidor Kouvelas Arista Networks Inc. 5453 Great America Parkway Santa Clara, CA 95054 United States of America
Isidor Kouvelas Arista Networks Inc.美国加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉大美洲大道5453号，邮编95054
Email: kouvelas@arista.com
Email: kouvelas@arista.com
Dino Farinacci lispers.net San Jose, CA United States of America
美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞Dino Farinaci lispers.net
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Email: farinacci@gmail.com