Re: [lisp] Proposed LISP WG Charter

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <> Tue, 19 January 2016 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4761B376E for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:58:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.265
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C4AMT652I0AQ for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 137211B376D for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id u0JMwtvU030480; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:58:55 -0500
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 20fjq8nw4j-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:58:54 -0500
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0JMwrTX026989; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:58:53 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0JMwjhV026907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:58:50 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:58:36 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:58:36 -0500
To: Luigi Iannone <>, Joel Halpern Direct <>
Thread-Topic: Proposed LISP WG Charter
Thread-Index: AQHRT3Upn000fbO/oEKkNos4wAzRfZ8DeZMw
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:58:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
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=2016-01-19_13:, , 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-1601190399
Archived-At: <>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposed LISP WG 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: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:58:58 -0000

Hi Luigi,

Looks good - can you add a few words to scope better the three bullet items: mobility, data-plane encryption, NAT-Traversal?


-----Original Message-----
From: Luigi Iannone [] 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:15 AM
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <>om>; Joel Halpern Direct <>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <>
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.




%%%%%%%% 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.