Hi All,
Joel and I bounced the following charter around and have also passed it in
front of AD's eyes.
You obviously have time to chew on this for a while before Taipei.
The IAB's October 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop (RFC 4984)
rekindled interest in scalable routing and addressing architectures for
the Internet. Among the many issues driving this renewed interest are
concerns about the scalability of the routing system and the impending
exhaustion of the IPv4 address space. Since the IAB workshop, several
proposals have emerged which attempt to address the concerns expressed
there and elsewhere. In general, these proposals are based on the
"locator/identifier separation".
The basic idea behind the separation is that the Internet architecture
combines two functions, routing locators, (where you are attached to the
network) and identifiers (who you are) in one number space: The IP
address. Proponents of the separation architecture postulate that
splitting these functions apart will yield several advantages, including
improved scalability for the routing system. The separation aims to
decouple locators and identifiers, thus allowing for efficient
aggregation of the routing locator space and providing persistent
identifiers in the identifier space.
LISP supports the separation of the IPv4 and IPv6 address space
following a network-based map-and-encapsulate scheme (RFC 1955). In
LISP, both identifiers and locators are IP addresses. In LISP,
identifiers are composed of two parts: a "global" portion that uniquely
identifies a particular site and a "local" portion that identifies an
interface within a site. The "local" portion may be subdivided to
identify a particular network within the site. For a given identifier,
LISP maps the "global" portion of the identifier into a set of locators
that can be used by de-capsulation devices to reach the identified
interface; as a consequence a host would typically change identifiers
when it moves from one site to another or whenever it moves from one
subnet to another within an site. Typically, the same IP address will
not be used as an identifier
and locator in LISP.
LISP requires no changes to end-systems or to most routers. LISP aims
for an incrementally deployable protocol.
A number of approaches are being looked at in parallel in other
contexts. The IRTF RRG examined several proposals, some of which were
published as IRTF-track Experimental RFCs.
The LISP WG is chartered to work on the LISP base protocol and any items
which directly impact LISP. The working group will encourage and
support interoperable LISP implementations as well as defining
requirements for alternate mapping systems. The Working Group will also
develop security profiles for LISP and the various LISP mapping systems.
It is expected that the results of specifying, implementing, and testing
LISP will be fed to the general efforts at the IETF and IRTF (e.g., the
Routing Research Group) that attempts to understand which type of a
solution is optimal. The LISP WG is NOT chartered to develop the final
or standard solution for solving the routing scalability problem. Its
specifications are Experimental and labeled with accurate disclaimers
about their limitations and not fully understood implications for
Internet traffic. In addition, as these issues are understood, the
working group will analyze and document the implications of LISP on
Internet traffic, applications, routers, and security. This analysis
will explain what role LISP can play in scalable routing. The analysis
should also look at scalability and levels of state required for
encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness, and so on as well as the
manageability and operability of LISP.
Goals and Milestones
Jun 2012 Forward draft-ietf-lisp-mib to the IESG.
Jun 2012 Forward draft-ietf-lisp-sec to the IESG.
Jun 2012 Forward draft-ietf-lisp-deployment to the IESG.
Jun 2012 Forward a security proposal document (draft-ietf-lisp-threats)
to the IESG.
Dec 2013 Forward to the IESG an operational set of documents which should
include cache management and ETR synchronization
techniques inclusive of a cache management specification.
Jun 2014 Forward to the IESG an evaluation of the security threat to
cache management and ETR synchronization.
Jun 2014 Evaluate the applicability and coverage for LISP from a
reuse of SIDR technology.
Dec 2014 Re-charter or close
Cheers
Terry
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
