<?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. -->
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- 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) -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?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="info" docName="draft-portoles-lisp-delegated-mappings-00"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
     ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
     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 abbrev="lisp-delegated-mappings">LISP Delegated Mappings</title>

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

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

    <author fullname="Marc Portoles Comeras" initials="M." surname="Portoles">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>170 Tasman Drive</street>

          <code>95134</code>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region>CA</region>

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

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

    <author fullname="Balaji Pitta" initials="B." surname="Pitta">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Tasman Drive</street>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <code>95134</code>

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

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

    <author fullname="Sanjay Hooda" initials="S" surname="Hooda">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>170 Tasman Drive</street>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <code>95134</code>

          <region>California</region>

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

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

    <date year="2025"/>

    <!-- 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>Internet</area>

    <workgroup>Network Working Group</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>LISP; Delegated Mapping; Map-Register; Map-Notify</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>The LISP protocol with its inherent decoupling of control-plane 
      and data-plane, offers the flexibility to support modern 
      networking paradigms. This document specifies how to use the LISP 
      protocol to enable centralized onboarding and management of EIDs
      within a network from an external controller or orchestration system.</t>
    </abstract>

    <note title="Requirements Notation">
      <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>
    </note>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>As new compute system environments emerge, routing networks have 
      been adapting to serve their communication needs. In many of these 
      cases, network controllers or orchestration engines are used to organize 
      resources or enforce network policies in a centralized manner.
      </t>
      <t>Examples of these types of systems range from wireless systems 
      in enterprise environments, Software-Defined Networks (SDN) (e.g., in 
      WAN, Datacenter, or Campus environments), and include public (or private) 
      cloud networks.
      </t>
      <t>In all these cases, it is common that a centralized controller or 
      orchestrator drives how endpoints authenticate, join, leave, or 
      move within the network. In many cases, this centralized controller is 
      also the point of reference that determines the policies that need to be 
      enforced.
      </t>
      <t>Networks running the LISP protocol can exploit the vantage point of these 
      controllers for early and faster onboarding and movement of endpoints 
      at selected locations of the network. Controllers that deploy or 
      authenticate sites and endpoints can interface directly with 
      the Mapping System to distribute this information to selected locations 
      (xTRs).
      </t>
      <t>This document specifies Delegated Mappings, where a controller 
      can use its interface to a LISP Mapping System to delegate ownership 
      of specific EIDs to selected xTRs of the network. The document provides a 
      detailed description of the mechanisms used to distribute this type 
      of mappings in a network running the LISP protocol.
      </t>
      <t>In particular, the specification describes:
       <list style="symbols">
           <t>How a controller may use the LISP Map-Register and Map-Notify 
           interfaces to distribute Delegated Mappings to LISP 
	   sites that should take ownership of specific EIDs.</t>
           <t>The procedures that an ETR follows to take ownership 
           of a Delegated Mapping so that an EID can be resolved using 
	   LISP protocol procedures.</t>
           <t>Finally, it also details how the controller can make use of 
           specific LCAF encodings such as ELPs and multiple data-planes 
	   (see <xref target="RFC8060"/>), to convey EID access 
           information to the corresponding ETR.</t>
       </list>
       </t>
       <t>Note also that Delegated Mappings can be combined with the procedures 
       specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility"/> to support 
       controller-based mobility in a network running the LISP protocol.
       </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Definition of terms">
    <t>The document uses the terms defined in Section 3 of documents 
    <xref target="RFC9300"/> and <xref target="RFC9301"/>.</t>

    <t>Additionally, this document introduces the following terms:</t>
    <dl newline="false" spacing="normal" indent="3">
        <dt>Delegated Mapping:</dt>
	<dd>This is the term used in this document to 
	identify a Mapping record registered with the Mapping system so that it 
	is relayed (delegated) to a corresponding xTR (or xTRs) of a LISP site.</dd>
	<dt>xTR-Controller:</dt>
	<dd>This term designates a network element that uses Delegated 
	Mappings to distribute EID records to the corresponding LISP sites 
	where they are connected to.</dd>
    </dl>
    </section>
    <section title="General Procedures">
    <section title="Reference System">
      <t><xref target="figure_reference"/> illustrates 
      a reference system model used to support the discussion of Delegated 
      Mappings through this section. </t>
      <t>
      <figure anchor="figure_reference"
              title="Reference System Architecture with delegated Mappings">
        <artwork><![CDATA[


           ------------  
          |    xTR     | 
          | Controller |------------,
          |            | 	    |
           ------------  	    |
                               +----+----+
			       |   Map   |
                               |  Server | 
                               +----+----+   
                 _..-._.--._..._.,.-|._._.-._.-_._.-..
             .-.'                                     '.-.
            (                                             )
             (                                            )
             '.-..-._.'--'._.'.-._.'.-._.'.-._.'.-._.'.-.'
                     |                           |     
                 RLOC=IP_A                   RLOC=IP_B     
                 +-+--+--+                   +-+--+--+     
                .| xTR A |.-.               .| xTR B |.-.  
               ( +-+--+--+   )             ( +-+--+--+   ) 
             .'   Site A    )             .'   Site B   )  
             (            .              (            .   
              '--'._.'.     )              '--'._.'.    )  
                     |  '--'                    |   '--'   
                  '--------'                  '--------'   
                  : Host 1 :                  : Host 2 :    
                  '--------'                  '--------'   
                 IP: 10.0.0.1                IP: 10.1.1.2  
         ]]></artwork>      
      </figure>
      </t>

      <t> A xTR-controller implements LISP control-plane interfaces so that it 
      can interact with the LISP Mapping System, represented with a single 
      Map-Server in the figure. The interconnection between the xTR-controller 
      and the Map-Server is out of the scope of this specification, but the 
      Map-Server MUST be able to handle Map Registration procedures through 
      this connection.</t>

      <t> The network running the LISP protocol has two sites (A and B) with 
      the corresponding xTRs providing access to them. There is a local 
      endpoint on each one of the sites (host 1 and 2)</t>

      <t> For the purpose of this specification the xTR-Controller knows 
      when endpoints are connected, authenticated or released from each one of
      the sites. The controller is also aware of the xTRs (and their 
      corresponding RLOC addresses) that provide access to each one of the 
      sites.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Flow Sequence to distribute Delegated Mappings">
    <t>When a xTR-Controller attempts to use the process of Delegated Mappings 
    to distribute EID Mappings to target LISP sites, it MUST know beforehand 
    the RLOCs of the xTRs providing access to those sites. Using 
    <xref target="figure_reference"/> as reference, the xTR-controller knows 
    that IP_A is the RLOC of xTR A, associated to site A.</t>
    <t>Using this information, the xTR-controller uses Delegated Mappings to 
    distribute information about Host 1 to Site A using the following 
    procedures:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" indent="adaptive" start="1" type="1">
	<li derivedCounter="1.">The xTR-Controller builds a Map-Register with 
	the EID record information it wants to distribute. The Map-Register 
	carries the Delegated Mapping (D) bit set (see  
	<xref target="messages"/>). Using the reference example, the 
	xTR-Controller sends a Map-Register to the Map-Server that carries 
	the EID-to-RLOC mapping of EID=&lt;10.0.0.1&gt; -&gt; RLOC=IP_A and 
	is built with the D-bit set.</li>
        <li derivedCounter="2.">When a Map-Server receives a Map-Register with 
	the D-bit set, it prepares a Map-Notify with the same EID record that 
	also has the D-bit set. This Map-Notify is sent to all 
	the RLOCs in the RLOC record of the Mapping. Following the example, 
	the Map-Server sends a Map-Notify with the D-bit set to IP_A 
	(RLOC of xTR A).</li>
        <li derivedCounter="3.">When an ETR receives a Map-Notify with the 
	D-bit set, it verifies that its own RLOC is in the RLOC record of the 
	Mapping in the message. When that is the case, the ETR creates an entry 
	for the EID in its database mapping. Continuing with the example, xTR A 
	receives the Map-Notify with the D-bit set and learns that 
	EID=&lt;10.0.0.1&gt; is local to site A.</li>
        <li derivedCounter="4.">Once the ETR verifies the presence of the EID 
	in the site, it confirms the EID with a new Map-Register to the 
	Map-Server. This is a regular Map-Register, without the D-bit and 
	marked as authoritative. In the example the ETR sends an authoritative 
	Map-Register with EID-to-RLOC mapping of 
	EID=&lt;10.0.0.1&gt; -&gt; RLOC=IP_A.</li>
      </ol>
    <t>This operation repeats for every EID and for every site that the 
    xTR-Controller wants to distribute information to.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Distribution of Delegated Mappings">
    <t>The distribution of Delegated  Mappings relies on the use of the 
    D-bit (see <xref target="messages"/>) both in the Map-Register 
    and Map-Notify messages.</t>
    <t>The xTR-Controller sending a Delegated Mapping MUST NOT set the 
    authoritative bit in the EID record. Only the site ETR, after accepting a 
    Delegated Mapping can set this bit when registering the EID prefix.</t>
    <t>Equally, a Map-Register carrying a Delegated Mapping MUST NOT have the 
    Proxy Map-Reply bit (P-bit) or the security-capable (S-bit) set. Since the 
    xTR-controller is not authoritative for the Mapping, it cannot set either 
    of these bits. Only the authoritative ETR for the destination site can 
    set these bits with its corresponding Map-Register, when accepting the 
    Delegated Mapping.</t>
    <t>A Delegated Mapping can also be removed. In that case the xTR-Controller 
    MUST send the Map-Register with the D-bit and with a TTL with value 0 in 
    the EID record. This removal MUST carry the RLOC record corresponding to 
    the site that the Delegated Mapping is being removed from. The Map-Notify 
    with the D-bit set is sent to all the RLOCs in the RLOC record with 
    the same TTL of value 0.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Map-Server procedures">
    <t>A Map-Server that supports Delegated Mappings, SHOULD send a 
    Map-Notify with the D-bit to all the RLOCs in the RLOC record of the 
    Delegated Mapping.</t>
    <t>A Map-Server MAY record in its registration table a Delegated Mapping, 
    but it MUST NOT use a Delegated Mapping Record to send a proxy Map-Reply 
    in response to a Map-Request for the EID in the Mapping. In such a case, 
    the Map-Server MAY forward the Map-Request to one of the RLOCs in the 
    record, following <xref target="RFC9301"/>.</t> 
    <t> This restriction extends to the procedures described in 
    <xref target="RFC9437"/>. 
    A Map-Server MUST NOT send Map-Notify with a Delegated Mapping as a 
    publication message for EID subscribers. Only the Map-Register from the 
    authoritative ETR can be published following LISP Publish/Subscribe 
    procedures.</t>
    <t>In order to avoid periodic Map-Register and Map-Notification messages, 
    Delegated Mappings MAY be distributed using a reliable transport as 
    described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport"/>.
    </t>
    </section>
    <section title="ETR procedures">
    <t>When an ETR receives Map-Notify with a Delegated Mapping (D-bit set) 
    that carries its own RLOC in the RLOC record it SHOULD verify the 
    reachability of the EID in the site before accepting the mapping. The 
    verification process is out of scope of this document.</t>
    <t>Once the Mapping is accepted the ETR adds the EID in its local mapping 
    database and it MUST send a Map-Register with the EID Record setting 
    the authoritative bit (A-bit).</t>
    <t>The ETR MUST be able to follow procedures described in 
    <xref target="RFC9300"/> and <xref target="RFC9301"/> when handling 
    EID records learned through the Delegated Mapping procedure.</t>
    <t>When the ETR receives a Map-Notify with a Delegated Mapping with 
    a TTL of value 0 it SHOULD remove the EID from the local mapping 
    database.</t>
    <t>When the ETR receives a Delegated Mapping that does not carry its 
    own RLOC in the RLOC record it MUST follow the procedures described in 
    <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility"/> and handle this as a 
    mobility event.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Message Extensions" anchor="messages">
    <t> This document proposes an extension of the Map-Register and Map-Notify
    messages to carry the notion that a Mapping is being distributed as a 
    Delegated Mapping. This information is used by both Map-Server and ETRs to 
    implement the procedures described in this specification.</t>

    <section title="Map-Register">
        <t> The Map-Register header, as defined in <xref target="RFC9301"/> is 
	extended with an additional field, the Delegated Mapping bit (D-bit).</t>

        <artwork><![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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=3 |P|S|I|D|      Reserved       |E|T|a|R|M| Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        ]]></artwork>

        <list style="hanging">
            <t hangText="D:">This is the Delegated Mapping bit in the
              Map-Register header. It should be set to 1 when Map-Register 
	      messages carry Delegated Mappings. When D-bit is set the 
	      P-bit and S-bit MUST be 0.</t>
        </list>
    </section>

    <section title="Map-Notify">
    <t>a</t>
            <t> The Map-Notify header, as defined in
        <xref target="RFC9301"/>, is extended with an
        additional field, the Delegated Mapping bit.</t>

        <artwork><![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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=4 |D|             Reserved                | Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        ]]></artwork>
        <list style="hanging">
            <t hangText="D:">This is the Delegated Mapping bit in the
              Map-Notify header. It should be set to 1 when the Map-Notify 
	      message carries a Delegated Mapping.
	    </t>
        </list>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Sending EID access information">
    <t>In many cases a controller using Delegated Mappings needs to convey EID 
    access information to the ETRs that receive the EID record. This access 
    information indicates what is the path that the ETR can take to reach 
    the EID within the local site.</t>
    <t>As a reference example, if we take site B in the reference system, 
    <xref target="multihop_site"/> illustrates the case when there is an 
    intermediate router (r) between xTR B and Host 2. In this example xTR B must 
    route traffic through the intermediate router to reach the endpoint: </t>
          <t>
      <figure anchor="multihop_site"
              title="routed EID reachability in site B">
        <artwork><![CDATA[
                   |     
               RLOC=IP_B     
               +-+--+--+     
               | xTR B |
               +-+--+--+
	           |
                 (IP_r) 
               +-+--+--+     
               |   r   |
               +-+--+--+
	           |
               '--------'   
               : Host 2 :    
               '--------'   
              IP: 10.1.1.2  
         ]]></artwork>      
      </figure>
      </t>
    <t>A xTR-Controller MAY use ELPs (LCAF type 10 in <xref target="RFC8060"/>) 
    in Delegated Mappings to convey information to the ETR about how to access 
    the EID, when required. The ETR 
    can use this information to program a forwarding path to the EID and also 
    to verify reachability of the EID before accepting a Delegated Mapping.</t> 
    <t>The First locator in the ELP sequence MUST correspond to the RLOC of the 
    ETR and the rest of locators MUST correspond to the sequence of hops that 
    the ETR should follow to reach the EID.</t>
    <t>It is worth noting also that local site reachability between the ETR and 
    the endpoint may not require encapsulation or alternative encapsulations 
    to the one used in the rest of the network. To solve this case each 
    locator in the ELP is sent using the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF (Type 16 in 
    <xref target="RFC8060"/>) and selecting the bit corresponding to the 
    encapsulation type. When no encapsulation is needed Type 16 is also used 
    but with all encapsulation bits set to 0.</t>
    <t>In order to illustrate this, <xref target="elp_message"/> 
    exemplifies the use of the ELP and Multiple Data-Plane LCAFs for the figure 
    above. In this reference encoding, the ELP carries both the IP address of 
    xTR B and the intermediate router r. The IP of the intermmediate router is 
    disttribured indicating that no encapsulation is needed and xTR B can access 
    Host 2 routing packets through IP_r. </t>
    <figure anchor="elp_message">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   |                          Record TTL                           |
|   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E   | Locator Count | EID mask-len  | ACT |A|      Reserved         |
I   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
D   | Rsvd  |  Map-Version Number   |         EID-AFI = 1           |
|   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r   |                    EID-Prefix (10.1.1.2)                      |
e   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c  /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |
o | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r R |        Unused Flags     |L|p|R|        AFI = 16387            |
d L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| O |    Rsvd1     |     Flags      |   Type = 10   |     Rsvd2     |
| C +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |            Length             |           Rsvd3         |L|P|S|
| R +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| E |             AFI = 1 or 2      |             IP_B              ~
| C +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| O ~                              IP_B                             |
| R +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| D |           Rsvd3         |L|P|S|         AFI = 16387           |
| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| E |    Rsvd1     |     Flags      |   Type = 16   |     Rsvd2     |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| P |            Length             |              0                ~
| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | ~            0                  |            AFI = 1            |
| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  \|                              IP_r                             |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
              ]]></artwork>
     </figure>
    </section>

    <section title="Implementation Considerations">
    <t>Delegated Mappings can be used in environments running the LISP protocol 
    that implement VPN based segmentation (<xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn"/>) 
    and EID mobility (<xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility"/>). </t>
    <section title="Virtual Private Network Considerations">
    <t> Delegated Mappings can be distributed using VPN segmentation 
    procedures, following the procedures described in 
    <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn"/>. When the xTR-controller intents to 
    distribute EIDs within specific VPN segments,
    it MUST use the same IID that is used in the target LISP site for that 
    segment. </t>
    <t>Following the same procedures, a Map-Register and Map-Notify with the 
    D-bit set carry the XEID encoded using the Instance-id LCAF 
    (<xref target="RFC8060"/>) in the EID record.</t>
    <t> An ETR receiving a Map-Notify with the D-bit set and with an IID that 
    is not known or used, SHOULD ignore the Map-Notify.</t>
    <t>It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use Delegated Mappings with extranet encoding 
    to distribute Mappings across IID boundaries. The Map-Server SHOULD prevent 
    this distribution.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="EID Mobility Considerations">
    <t> When Delegated Mappings are combined with the procedures of 
    <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility"/>, a controller can be used 
    to drive the mobility of EIDs through the network.</t>
    <t>A Map-Server that receives a Map-Register with the D-bit set, SHOULD 
    generate a Map-Notify with the D-bit set to all ETRs that have an active 
    registration of the Mapping.</t>
    <t>When an ETR receives a Delegated Mapping with a RLOC record that does 
    not have any local RLOC on the ETR, it must treat the Mapping as a mobility 
    event and follow the procedures in 
    <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility"/></t>
    </section>
    <section title="Reliable Transport Considerations">
    <t>Delegated Mappings can be distributed using a reliable transport as 
    described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport"/>. 
    Since both Map-Register and Map-Notify encodings are reuse when sending 
    Reliable Registrations and Reliable Notifications, the same D-bit is used 
    in this case to indicate the distribution of a Delegated Mapping. 
    </t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
    <t>Map-Register and Map-Notify messages MUST be authenticated following 
    the procedures specified in <xref target="RFC9301"/>. XTR-Controllers 
    follow the same procedures.</t>
    <t>Map-Notify messages carrying Delegated Mappings are handled by ETRs as 
    unsolicited Map-Notify messages, following <xref target="RFC9301"/>. The 
    Map-Server MUST use the pre-shared key associated to the target Site of the 
    Delegated Mapping to authenticate the Map-Notify.</t>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This memo includes no request to IANA.</t>
    </section>

  </middle>

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

  <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="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9301.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9300.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8060.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9437.xml"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn.xml"?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
