[lisp] working LISP WG charter
David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> Mon, 09 March 2009 20:26 UTC
Return-Path: <dmm@1-4-5.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513D93A6BE2 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YDE8YzhODnk7 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m106.maoz.com (m106.maoz.com [205.167.76.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA723A69A8 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n29KRGnK028354 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:27:16 -0700
Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n29KRGrv028353 for lisp@ietf.org; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:27:16 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:27:16 -0700
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20090309202716.GA28330@1-4-5.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc
X-gpg-fingerprint: 2409 8B50 B389 A307 BA5C 2A16 3918 03D6 A099 D8A7
X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go. John Lennon"
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: [lisp] working LISP WG charter
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:26:43 -0000
As edited by Jari. Questions/comments to the list. Thanks, Dave --- LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) Last Modified: 2009-03-05 Chair(s): TBD Internet Area Director(s): TBD Routing Area Advisor: TBD Secretary: TBD Mailing Lists: General Discussion: lisp@ietf.org Description of Working Group: The IAB's October 2006 workshop on 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" (frequently referred to as Loc/ID split). The basic idea behind the Loc/ID split that the Internet architecture combines two functions, Routing Locators, or RLOCs (where you are attached to the network) and Endpoint Identifiers, or EIDs (who you are) in one number space: The IP address. Proponents of the Loc/ID split postulate that splitting these functions apart with yield several advantages, including improved scalability for the routing system. The Loc/ID split aims to decouple location and identity, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the RLOC space and providing persistent identity in the EID space. The LISP protocol is an instantiation of the separation of Internet address space into Endpoint Identifiers and Routing Locators designed by means of a network-based map-and-encap scheme. A number of other instantiations of the same general concept are being looked at in parallel in the IRTF and IETF. At this time, these proposals are at an early stage. All proposals (including LISP) have potentially harmful side-effects to Internet traffic carried by the involved routers, have parts where deployment incentives may be lacking, and are generally NOT RECOMMENDED for deployment beyond experimental situations at this stage. Many of the proposals have components (such as the EID-to-RLOC mapping system) where it is not yet known what kind of design alternative is the best one among many. However, despite these issues it would be valuable to be able to develop concrete protocol specifications and build equipment that can be used to understand the characteristics of these designs. The LISP WG is chartered to work on the design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system [2], LISP Interworking [4], LISP Map Server [8], and LISP multicast [6] for these purposes, with the given references a starting point. 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 the ALT and/or other 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 documents are Experimental and labeled with the suitable disclaimers about their limitations and not fully understood implications for Internet traffic. Goals and Milestones: Mar 2010 Submit base LISP specification to the IESG for Experimental. Mar 2010 Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for Experimental. Mar 2010 Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG for Experimental. June 2010 Submit the LISP Map Server specification to the IESG for Experimental. June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Securing the LISP Mapping System to the IESG for Experimental. Jul 2010 Submit LISP for Multicast Environments to the IESG for Experimental. Jul 2010 Submit a preliminary analysis of how the LISP protocols (LISP base protocol, LISP+ALT mapping system, and LISP multicast) address the Design Goals for Scalable Internet Routing [7]. Aug 2010 Re-charter or close. Internet-Drafts: draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt draft-fuller-lisp-alt-05.txt draft-fuller-lisp-ms-00.txt draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt Request For Comments: None References ---------- [1] Farinacci, D. et. al., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt. [2] Fuller, V., et. al., "LISP Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)", draft-fuller-lisp-alt-05.txt [3] Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-01.txt. [4] Lewis, D., et. al., "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6", draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt. [5] Mathy, L., et. al., "LISP-DHT: Towards a DHT to map identifiers onto locators", draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt. [6] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "LISP for Multicast Environments", draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt. [7] T. Li, Ed., "Design Goals for Scalable Internet Routing", draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01, IRTF, July 2007. [8] Farinacci, D. and V. Fuller, "LISP Map Server", draft-fuller-lisp-ms-00.txt.
- [lisp] working LISP WG charter David Meyer
- Re: [lisp] working LISP WG charter Scott Brim
- Re: [lisp] working LISP WG charter David Meyer