Subject: [lisp] LISP, San Francisco, and WG

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:21:59 +0200

All,

After considering the input from the various lists, IESG, IAB, etc, I 
have decided that the best course of action with regards to LISP is to 
create a tightly scoped WG. The scoping relates to truth in advertising 
about the readiness of the technology for wide deployment and how the 
results of the WG will be used. The specifications coming out of the WG 
will be Experimental RFCs. Please see the charter text below; comments 
appreciated. And I see that we've already received feedback from 
Margaret, thanks for that.

The group is expected to work on one specific solution, converting that 
solution to something else is not within the plan. The RRG obviously 
needs to continue their work with a number of other solutions and 
analysis of the design space. I plan to keep the door open for other 
proposals as well (some could argue that 6AI is another solution; that 
might become a WG too in San Francisco). I don't think anyone believes 
that either LISP or the other solutions from RRG are ready for prime 
time; there are significant remaining problems even at the conceptual 
and incentive levels, let alone protocol bits. But before we get to a 
final solution, it is very useful to test various designs, to understand 
their implications.

A formal call for IETF-wide comments on the proposed working group and 
charter will be made in the next few days. You can send input on this 
list or say something at the meeting. The final approval will happen 
after San Francisco. At the end of the day we will decide this based on 
the community feedback, but my expectation is that there is support for 
letting the LISP folks work on their design in the IETF.

Sam Hartman and Darrel Lewis have agreed to chair the group -- thank 
you! Please talk to the chairs about agenda; we are obviously doing this 
quite late before the meeting, so a lot of preparation has to happen in 
a short amount of time. Other than the opportunity for feedback on the 
WG creation and the charter, I think we should run the meeting as if it 
were a WG meeting.

Jari

--------

LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol)

Last Modified: 2009-03-12 21:01:40

Chair(s):
TBD

Internet Area Director(s):
TBD

Routing Area Advisor:
TBD

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

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".

The basic idea behind the separation 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 separation
architecture postulate that splitting these functions apart will yield
several advantages, including improved scalability for the routing
system. The separation aims to decouple location and identity, thus
allowing for efficient aggregation of the RLOC space and providing
persistent identity in the EID space.

LISP supports the separation of the Internet address space into
Endpoint Identifiers and Routing Locators following a
network-based map-and-encap scheme (RFC 1955). It employs
EIDs that represent a mixture of locators and identifiers; it
could also be classified as a multi-level locator scheme.
A number of other approaches 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 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 write
concrete protocol specifications and develop implementations that can
be used to understand the characteristics of these designs. The LISP
WG is chartered to work on the LISP base protocol
(draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt),  the LISP+ALT mapping system
(draft-fuller-lisp-alt-05.txt), LISP Interworking
(draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt), LISP Map Server
(draft-fuller-lisp-ms-00.txt), and LISP multicast
(draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt) for these purposes, with the given
drafts as 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 specifications are Experimental and labeled with accurate
disclaimers about their limitations and not fully understood
implications for Internet traffic. In addition, as these issues are
understood, the working group will analyze and document the
implications of LISP on Internet traffic, applications, routers, and
security. This analysis will explain what role LISP can play in scalable
routing. The analysis should also look at scalability and levels of state
required for encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness, and so on
(draft-meyer-loc-id-implications).

Goals and Milestones:

Mar 2010  Submit base LISP specification to the IESG as Experimental

Mar 2010  Submit base ALT specification to the IESG as Experimental

Mar 2010  Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG as
Experimental

June 2010 Submit the LISP Map Server specification to the IESG as
Experimental

June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Securing the LISP Mapping System to
the IESG as Experimental

Jul 2010  Submit LISP for Multicast Environments to the IESG as
Experimental

Dec 2010  Submit a preliminary analysis as Informational

Dec 2010  Re-charter or close.