Re: proposed text for charter
Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Thu, 24 March 2005 20:26 UTC
Envelope-to: shim6-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:26:40 +0000
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.2.20050325072358.027f6640@kahuna.telstra.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:26:14 +1100
To: shim6 <shim6@psg.com>
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: proposed text for charter
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 06:39 AM 25/03/2005, avri@psg.com wrote: >Hi, > >While it does not offer everything I would want, I am fairly comfortable with the charter as currently proposed. I've added in milestones, background documents, and chartered work items to this proposed text, and the text then looks as follows: For the purposes of redundancy, load sharing, operational policy or cost, a site may be multihomed, with the site's network having connections to multiple IP service providers. The current Internet routing infrastructure permits multihoming using provider-in dependant addressing, and adapts to changes in the availability of these connections. However if the site uses multiple provider-assigned address prefixes for every host within the site, host application associations cannot use alternate paths, such as for surviving the changes or for creating new associations, when one or more of the site's address prefixes becomes unreachable. This working group will produce specifications for an IPv6-based site multihoming solution that inserts a new sub-layer (shim) into the IP stack of end-system hosts. It will enable hosts on multihomed sites to use a set of provider-assigned IP address prefixes and switch between them without upsetting transport protocols or applications. The work will be based on the architecture developed by the IETF multi6 working group. The shim6 working group is to complete the required protocol developments and the architecture and security analysis of the required protocols. Requirements for the solution are: o The approach must handle rehoming both existing communication and being able to establish new communication when one or more of the addresses is unreachable. o IPv6 NAT devices are assumed not to exist, or not to present an obstacle about which the shim6 solution needs to be concerned. o Only IPv6 is considered. o Changes in the addresses that are used below the shim will be invisible to the upper layers, which will see a fixed address (called Upper Layer Identifier or ULID). o ULIDs will be actual IP addresses, permitting existing applications to continue to work unchanged, and permitting application referrals to work, as long as the IP Addresses are available. o The solution should assume ingress filtering may be applied at network boundaries. o The solution must allow the global routing system to scale even if there is a very large number of multihomed sites. This implies that re-homing not be visible to the routing system. o Compatibility will remain for existing mobility mechanisms. It will be possible to continue using Mobile IPv6 when using Shim6 simultaneously. However, any optimizations or advanced configurations are out of scope for shim6. o The approach is to provide an optimized way to handle a static set of addresses, while also providing a way to securely handle dynamic changes in the set of addresses. The dynamic changes might be useful for future combinations of multihoming and IP mobility, but the working group will not take on such mobility capabilities directly. The background documents to be considered by the WG include: RFC 3582 draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-04.txt draft-ietf-multi6-things-to-think-about-01.txt draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats-03.txt The input documents that the WG will use as the basis for its design are: draft-huston-l3shim-arch-00.txt draft-ietf-multi6-functional-dec-00.txt draft-ietf-multi6-l3shim-00.txt draft-ietf-multi6-failure-detection-00.txt draft-ietf-multi6-hba-00.txt draft-ietf-multi6-app-refer-00.txt In addition to the network layer shim solution, the shim6 WG is specifically chartered to work on: o Solutions for site exit router selection that works when each ISP uses ingress filtering, i.e. when the chosen site exit needs to be related to the source address chosen by the host. This solution should work whether or not the peer site supports the shim6 protocol. o Solutions to establish new communications after an outage has occurred that does not requires shim support from the non-multihomed end of the communication. The wg will explore if such solutions are also useful when both ends support the shim. o Congestion control and explore how this and other QoS and traffic engineering issues may interact with the use of multiple locators at both ends. o The relationships between Upper Layer Identifiers (ULIDs) and Unique Local Addresses. o ICMP error demuxing for locator failure discovery. o If necessary, develop and specify formats and structure for: - Cryptographically protected locators - Carrying the flow label across the shim layer defined in the multi6 architecture. The shim6 WG is to publish, as standards track RFCs, specifications with enough details to allow fully interoperable implementations. The specifications must specifically refer to all applicable threats and describe how they are handled, with the requirement being that the resulting solution not introduce any threats that make the security any less than in today's Internet. Milestones MAY 05 First draft of architectural document MAY 05 First draft of protocol document MAY 05 First draft on cryptographic locators, if required MAY 05 First draft on multihoming triggers description MAY 05 First draft on applicability statement document SEP 05 WG last-call on architectural document SEP 05 WG last-call on applicability statement document NOV 05 WG last-call on protocol document NOV 05 WG last-call on cryptographic locators, if required NOV 05 Submit completed architectural document to IESG NOV 05 Submit applicability statement document to IESG JAN 06 WG last-call on multihoming triggers description JAN 06 Submit document on cryptographic locators to the IESG, if required JAN 06 Submit protocol document to the IESG MAR 06 Submit draft on multihoming triggers description to the IESG
- proposed text for charter Jari Arkko
- Re: proposed text for charter Thierry Ernst
- RE: proposed text for charter john.loughney
- Re: proposed text for charter Brian E Carpenter
- Re: proposed text for charter Jari Arkko
- Re: proposed text for charter Erik Nordmark
- RE: proposed text for charter Bound, Jim
- Re: proposed text for charter Brian E Carpenter
- Re: proposed text for charter Jari Arkko
- RE: proposed text for charter Bound, Jim
- Re: proposed text for charter Thierry Ernst
- Re: proposed text for charter Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: proposed text for charter Bound, Jim
- RE: proposed text for charter Bound, Jim
- Re: proposed text for charter Margaret Wasserman
- Re: proposed text for charter Dave Crocker
- Re: proposed text for charter Geoff Huston
- Re: proposed text for charter avri
- Re: proposed text for charter Brian E Carpenter
- Re: proposed text for charter Dave Crocker
- Re: proposed text for charter Jari Arkko
- Re: proposed text for charter Erik Nordmark
- Re: proposed text for charter Erik Nordmark
- Re: proposed text for charter Brian E Carpenter
- RE: proposed text for charter john.loughney
- Re: proposed text for charter Erik Nordmark
- Re: proposed text for charter marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: proposed text for charter marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: proposed text for charter Thomas Narten
- Re: proposed text for charter Jari Arkko
- Re: proposed text for charter Thomas Narten