Re: [lisp] Proposed LISP WG Charter

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Tue, 26 January 2016 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377C71B322F for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:18:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IKSbmdGVr9Tt for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D33821B3225 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id u0QMDqGt012584; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:18:32 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 20pbp347cx-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:18:31 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0QMIUnc023782; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:18:30 -0500
Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0QMILCW023550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:18:25 -0500
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.145]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:18:06 GMT
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.34]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.145]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:18:06 -0500
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Thread-Topic: Proposed LISP WG Charter
Thread-Index: AQHRT3Upn000fbO/oEKkNos4wAzRfZ8DeZMwgAEfDACAAzs8gIAGm99Q
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:18:05 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8527EBE89@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <EA0997EC-B945-41A3-A11E-98A5DB1C30E8@gigix.net> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8527DC7F2@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com> <C7AB49B7-05FE-4388-A7F7-BCD8F2E4830F@gigix.net> <0A03A613-0E8C-48F6-97D5-E3D919041068@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <0A03A613-0E8C-48F6-97D5-E3D919041068@gigix.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.80.22]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-01-26_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1507310008 definitions=main-1601260376
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3C5ORkXKe1RfTkEaJRDa2BJOqOQ>
Cc: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposed LISP WG Charter
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:18:35 -0000

Hi Luigi,

Looks good - I will start the rechartering process.
Thanks,
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@gigix.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 7:22 AM
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>
Cc: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>om>; LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed LISP WG Charter

Hi Deborah,

Hereafter you can find an updated charter with additional wording on the items you suggested.

Let us know what you think.

ciao

Luigi


%%%%%%%% LISP WG PROPOSED CHARTER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%



The LISP WG has completed the first set of Experimental RFCs describing the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP supports a routing architecture which decouples the routing locators and identifiers, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the routing locator space and providing persistent identifiers in the identifier space. LISP requires no changes to end-systems or to routers that do not directly participate in the LISP deployment. LISP aims for an incrementally deployable protocol. The scope of the LISP techology is recognized to range from unicast and multicast overlays at Layer 2 as well as at Layer 3, including NAT traversal, VPNs,  and supporting mobility as a general feature, independently of wheter it is a mobile user or a migrating VM, hence being applicable in both Data Centers and public Internet environments.


The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol with the main objective to develop a standard solution based on the completed Experimental RFCs and the experience gained from early deployments.

This work will include reviewing the existing set of Experimental RFCs and doing the necessary enhancements to support a base set of standards track RFCs. The group will review the current set of Working Group documents to identify potential standards-track documents and do the necessary enhancements to support standards-track. It is recognized that some of the work will continue on the experimental track, though the group is encouraged to move the documents to standards track in support of network use, whereas the work previously was scoped to experimental documents.

Beside this main focus, the LISP WG work on the following items:

·       Multi-protocol support: Specifying the required extensions to support multi-protocol encapsulation (e.g.,   L2 or NSH – Network Service Headers). Rather than developing new encapsulations the work will aim at using existing well-established encapsulations or emerging from other Working Grops such as  NVO3 and SFC. 

 

·       Alternative Mapping System Design. By extenting LISP with  new protocols support it is also necessary to develop the required mapping function and control plane extensions to operate LISP map-assisted  networks (which might include Hierarchical Pull, Publish/Subscribe, or Push models, independednt mapping systems interconnection, security extensions, or alternative transports of the LISP control protocol).

 

·       Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenario include mobile nodes (in mobile environments ) or Virtual Machines – VMs (in data centers), hence support needs to be provided in order to achieve seamless connectivity.   

 

·       Multicast: Support for overlay multicast by means of replication as well as interfacing with existing underlay multicast support.

 

·       Data-Plane Encryption: In some scenarios it may be desirable to encrypt LISP encapsulated traffic. In this case, the data-plane encryption mechanism itself and support for control-plane security material exchange needs to be specified.

 

·       NAT-Traversal: Support for NAT-traversal solution in deployments where a LISP xTR is separated from correspondent xTR(s) by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node).

 

·       Models for managing the LISP protocol and deployments that include data models, as well as allowing for programmable management interfaces. These managament methods should be considered for both the data-plane, control-plane, and mapping system components.

 

 

 



> On 20 Jan 2016, at 12:01, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
> This can be surely be done.
> 
> Will update the proposed charter before the end of the week.
> 
> ciao
> 
> L.
> 
> 
>> On 19 Jan 2016, at 23:58, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Luigi,
>> 
>> Looks good - can you add a few words to scope better the three bullet items: mobility, data-plane encryption, NAT-Traversal?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Deborah
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@gigix.net] 
>> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:15 AM
>> To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>om>; Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
>> Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Proposed LISP WG Charter
>> 
>> Hi Deborah,
>> 
>> The LISP WG had a final round of discussion (on the mailing list) 
>> earlier this month on the new proposed charter.
>> 
>> Hereafter you can find the outcome.
>> This version includes all items the WG is ready to work on.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> ciao
>> 
>> Luigi
>> 
>> 
>> %%%%%%%% LISP WG PROPOSED CHARTER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>> 
>> 
>> The LISP WG has completed the first set of Experimental RFCs describing the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP supports a routing architecture which decouples the routing locators and identifiers, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the routing locator space and providing persistent identifiers in the identifier space. LISP requires no changes to end-systems or to routers that do not directly participate in the LISP deployment. LISP aims for an incrementally deployable protocol. The scope of the LISP techology is recognized to range from unicast and multicast overlays at Layer 2 as well as at Layer 3, including NAT traversal, VPNs,  and supporting mobility as a general feature, independently of wheter it is a mobile user or a migrating VM, hence being applicable in both Data Centers and public Internet environments.
>> 
>> 
>> The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol with the main objective to develop a standard solution based on the completed Experimental RFCs and the experience gained from early deployments.
>> 
>> This work will include reviewing the existing set of Experimental RFCs and doing the necessary enhancements to support a base set of standards track RFCs. The group will review the current set of Working Group documents to identify potential standards-track documents and do the necessary enhancements to support standards-track. It is recognized that some of the work will continue on the experimental track, though the group is encouraged to move the documents to standards track in support of network use, whereas the work previously was scoped to experimental documents.
>> 
>> Beside this main focus, the LISP WG work on the following items:
>> 
>> ·       Multi-protocol support: Specifying the required extensions to support multi-protocol encapsulation (e.g.,   L2 or NSH – Network Service Headers). Rather than developing new encapsulations the work will aim at using existing well-established encapsulations or emerging from other Working Grops such as  NVO3 and SFC.  
>> 
>> ·       Alternative Mapping System Design. By extenting LISP with  new protocols support it is also necessary to develop the required mapping function and control plane extensions to operate LISP map-assisted  networks (which might include Hierarchical Pull, Publish/Subscribe, or Push models, independent mapping systems interconnection, security extensions, or alternative transports of the LISP control protocol).
>> 
>> ·       Mobility
>> 
>> ·       Multicast: Support for overlay multicast by means of replication as well as interfacing with existing underlay multicast support.
>> 
>> ·       Data-Plane Encryption
>> 
>> ·       NAT-Traversal
>> 
>> ·       Models for managing the LISP protocol and deployments that include data models, as well as allowing for programmable management interfaces. These managament methods should be considered for both the data-plane, control-plane, and mapping system components.
>> 
>