Subject: [lisp] Charter for discussion at today's meeting

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:11:43 -0400 (EDT)

I've attempted to rifine my text to address concerns brought up on the list today.

At today's meeting I hope we can identify open issues with this text.
Unless we believe some issue will be far easier to discuss
face-to-face rather than over the list, we will focus on identifying
the issues not on closing them out.

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, (where you are attached to
the network) and Identifiers (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  locators and identifiers, thus allowing
for efficient aggregation of the routing locator space and providing
persistent identifiers in the  identifier space.

LISP supports the separation of the Internet address space following a
network-based map-and-encapsulate scheme (RFC 1955).  In LISP, both
identifiers and locators are IP addresses. In LISP, identifiers are
composed of two parts: a "global" portion that uniquely identifies a
particular site and a "local" portion that identifies an interface
within a site.  The "local" portion may be subdivided to identify a
particular network within the site.  For a given identifier, LISP maps
the "global" portion of the identifier into a set of locators that can
reach the identified interface; as a consequence a host would
typically change identifiers when it moves from one site to another or
whenever it moves from one subnet to another within an
site. Typically, the same IP address will not be used as an identifier
and locator in LISP.

LISP requires no changes to end-systems or to most routers.  LISP aims
for an incrementally deployable protocol.

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.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp