Subject: [lisp] a bit more formal LISP BOF proposal

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:24:22 -0800

All,

	Since there was some initial discussion/confusion over
	whether or not we were going to need to do a LISP BOF, we
	never really produced a formal LISP BOF proposal. The
	LISP BOF proposal below closes that gap.

	Comments please.

	Thanks,

	Dave

-----

LISP BOF (LISP)
===============
Name:                LISP BOF (LISP)
Area:                Internet
Conflicts:           PIM, IDR, SOFTWIRE, SHIM6, GROW, SIDR,
                     INT-AREA open meeting, RRG meeting,
		     and the NAT66 and RANGER BOFs, if scheduled
Expected attendance: 100+
Special requests:    none
Number of Slots:     one
Timeslot:            2 hours
Chairs:              Darrel Lewis + TBD
Mailing List:        [email-masked]

AGENDA
------
  5 min Administrivia                             Lewis
    - Scribes
    - Agenda Bashing
 15 min Scope of the BOF                          Chairs/ADs
    - Motivation and problem statement presentation
  5 min Mailing List(s) Activity Report		  Meyer
 15 min LISP Design Goals and Objectives          Farinacci
 10 min OPENLISP status				  Iannone
 15 min LISP Deployment Status			  Fuller
 30 min Consensus and Charter discussion          Chairs/ADs
    - Consensus
    - Work Items/Milestones
    - Interaction with other WGs and RRG
 25 min Conclusion and next steps		  Chairs/ADs

BOF DESCRIPTION
---------------
The IAB's October 2006 workshop on Routing and Addressing
Workshop [0] 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 is 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 will yield several advantages, including
improved scalability for the routing system via improved
aggregation of RLOCs. However, in order to be efficiently
aggregated, RLOCs must be allocated in a way that is congruent
with the topology of the network ("Rekhter's Law"). Today's
Provider Allocated IP address space is an example of this kind of
allocation scheme.  EIDs, on the other hand, are typically
allocated along organizational boundaries. Since the network
topology and organizational hierarchies are rarely congruent, it
is difficult (if not impossible) to make a single number space
efficiently serve both purposes.

In summary, the Loc/ID split aims to decouple location and
identity, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the RLOC
space, providing persistent identity in the EID space and in
some cases to providing for secure and efficient mobility.  

The LISP protocol is an instantiation of the separation of
Internet address space into Endpoint Identifiers and Routing
Locators through deployment of a network-based map-and-encap scheme.

LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that
respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006
Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the WG is to
work on the design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT
mapping system [2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast
[6]. 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 (presumably using technology
developed in the SIDR working group) and/or other mapping
systems.

Description of Proposed Working Group
-------------------------------------
LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol)

Last Modified: 2009-02-02

Chair(s):
 Darrel Lewis <[email-masked]>
 TBD

Internet Area Director(s):
 Jari Arkko    <[email-masked]>
 Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>

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 [0] 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 is 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 will yield several advantages, including
improved scalability for the routing system via improved
aggregation of RLOCs. However, in order to be efficiently
aggregated, RLOCs must be allocated in a way that is congruent
with the topology of the network ("Rekhter's Law"). Today's
Provider Allocated IP address space is an example of this kind of
allocation scheme.  EIDs, on the other hand, are typically
allocated along organizational boundaries. Since the network
topology and organizational hierarchies are rarely congruent, it
is difficult (if not impossible) to make a single number space
efficiently serve both purposes.

In summary, the Loc/ID split aims to decouple location and
identity, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the RLOC
space, providing persistent identity in the EID space and in
some cases to providing for secure and efficient mobility.  

The LISP protocol is an instantiation of the separation of
Internet address space into Endpoint Identifiers and Routing
Locators through deployment of a network-based map-and-encap scheme.

LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that
respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006
Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the WG is to
work on the design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT
mapping system [2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast
[6]. 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 (presumably using technology
developed in the SIDR working group) and/or other mapping
systems.

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 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-11.txt
	draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt
	draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt
	draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt

Request For Comments:
	  None

References
----------
[0]     Meyer, D. et. al., "Report from the IAB Workshop on
        Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984.

[1]     Farinacci, D. et. al., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
        (LISP)", draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt.

[2]	Fuller, V., et. al., "LISP Alternative Topology
	(LISP-ALT)", draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt

[3]	Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation
	Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-00.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. 

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