Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter

"Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <> Sat, 09 January 2016 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FEA1A9082 for <>; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:04:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b-uzNGz-Hwky for <>; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:04:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C4A31A9083 for <>; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 14:04:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4016; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452377094; x=1453586694; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Dnx+9MMZsSfWZCBBXn/woU3TK9jj2dTgBR75pvMIlLY=; b=W9e5sR+bhLMQI0zXXCkR8bYXMkS4SVx5+Xxnxhe1JSYuRYDofgDzwt37 OFZfJmKTLSHzwk4q1D/+m/HkROLc6mYJhDpvmd++Lxpq+AQtMOGAOU6Mq 1A5bJ3TvKtUWSSYaVHFNhezN2hiu03HcWk6CiZcXmNQuOkbitxiwyWU/N 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,546,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="62050819"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jan 2016 22:04:53 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u09M4rwa013648 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:04:53 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 16:04:52 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 16:04:52 -0600
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <>
To: Luigi Iannone <>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter
Thread-Index: AQHRSynDYZSVkjMIzkGRRLkXeytrfg==
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:04:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <>, Joel Halpern Direct <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Update Proposed CHarter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 22:04:56 -0000


Where would enhancements of the protocol - like Reliable Transport - fit into the below text?  I’d like to make sure that things like this and a pub/sub distribution model are explicitly mentioned, because they are actively being developed by multiple implementers - maybe ‘alternative Mapping System Design’ is too narrow a focus?

On Jan 6, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Luigi Iannone <> wrote:

> Hi All,
> Hereafter a new version of the charter with the comments received so far.
> Please send more feedback. Would be good if we can send the charter to our AD by next week.
> ciao
> L.
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> 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
> ·       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.
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list