Subject: [lisp] Mobility architecture and LISP charter

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:26:06 -0400

I asked the proponents of the mobility architecture draft to prepare a
slide explaining why their draft fits within the LISP charter.  Since
this was not presented yesterday, I'd like to ask for that here.  Some
discussion has already taken places, but I'd like to ask for a short
explanation of why this draft falls within the charter that the
proponents can agree to.  The chairs will use this explanation along
with comments from the discussion and AD in evaluating whether this is
in scope.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:54:40 +0200

Sam,

LISP mobility is a natural area to explore (some of us considered doing
so a while ago).  One reason one could view it in scope is that mobility
is likely to test the scalability of various mapping systems,
demonstrating strengths and weaknesses.  If one were to write an
analysis about different mapping systems, you would certainly want to
discuss mobility.  It appears in the charter that you are being asked to
do the analysis, and so this could be considered a supporting work.

And even if you don't agree with that logic, you should still allow the
authors to present work in this framework, even if you need to amend the
charter.  The output of this group will be experimental specifications,
results, and analysis.  Nothing here is closing the door on any other
work the IETF or IRTF might produce or recommend.  The LISP Mobility
work also offers us an opportunity to compare and contrast other
IP-based mobility systems like MIP[v6].  Similarly, I would suggest that
other LISP-based mobility solutions be considered.

Eliot

On 7/28/09 3:26 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>
>

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:12:33 -0700

Sam,

        I built slide 10 in the deck posted for the agenda to
        answer your question. Briefly:

        - Clearly routing must scale to support an Internet with a
          large number of mobile nodes. Since such mobility is
	  expected to be a big part of the Internet's future, the
	  network must scale to support mobility at this scale.

        - The LISP map-server and ALT infrastructure are
	  mechanisms to do this for stationary sites which change
          addresses. Unlike the case with IPv6 and MIP6, we want
	  to build an Internet where mobile nodes are first-class
	  citizens (as just pointed out in MEXT).

        - The same infrastructure used when mobile nodes change
          addresses

	- Finally, a LISP site may be a single node.  That is,
	  the  base LISP spec does not define the size of a LISP
	  site or the EID-prefix that might be assigned to a site.

        LISP MN is in scope for the LISP WG for these reasons. To
        the point: LISP MN uses the LISP technology being
        standardized in the LISP WG today. Since that technology
        is in scope (obviously), LISP MN is in scope.

        Dave