Subject: [lisp] working LISP WG charter

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:27:16 -0700

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: [email-masked]

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.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:18:30 -0400

> aims to decouple location and identity, thus allowing for

s/identity/identifier/ ... "identity" brings in other baggage.

> identity in the EID space.

identification 

> designs. The LISP WG is chartered to work on the design on the

design of

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:32:16 -0700

> > designs. The LISP WG is chartered to work on the design on the

	Fixed, thnx.

	Dave