Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] FW: WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:51:44 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of IESG Secretary
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:23 AM
To: IETF Announcement list
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp) 

A modified charter has been submitted for the Locator/ID Separation 
Protocol (lisp) working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  The 
IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter is 
provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your 
comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) by Thursday, March 1, 
2011.

Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
-------------------------------------
Current Status: Active
Last updated: 2012-02-14

 Chairs:
     Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
     Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>

 Internet Area Directors:
     Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
     Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

 Internet Area Advisor:
     Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

 Secretaries:
     Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
     Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: [email-masked]
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
     Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group:

The IAB's October 2006 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. 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 is 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.

A number of approaches are being looked at in parallel in other
contexts. The IRTF RRG examined several proposals, some of which were
published as IRTF-track Experimental RFCs.

The LISP WG has completed the first set of Experimental RFCs
describing the Locator/ID Separation Protocol. LISP requires no
changes to end-systems or to routers that do not directly participate
in the LISP deployment. LISP aims for an incrementally deployable
protocol.

The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol, completing
the ongoing work, and any items which directly impact LISP protocol
structures and which are related to using LISP for improving Internet routing
scalability. Specifically, the group will work on:

- Architecture description: This document will describe the
  architecture of the entire LISP system, making it easier to read the
  rest of the LISP specifications and providing a basis for discussion
  about the details of the LISP protocols.

- Deployment models: This document will describe what kind of
  deployments can be expected for LISP, and give operational advice on
  how they can be set up.

- A description of the impacts of LISP: This document will describe
  the problems that LISP is intended to address and the impacts that
  employing LISP has. While the work on LISP was initiated by Internet
  routing scaling concerns, there has also been an interest on
  improved solutions to a number of different problems, such as
  traffic engineering. This document should describe problem areas
  (such as scaling or traffic engineer) where LISP is expected to have
  a positive effect, as well as any tradeoffs that are caused by
  LISP's design.

- LISP security threats and solutions: This document will describe the
  security analysis of the LISP system, what issues it needs to
  protect against, and a solution that helps defend against those
  issues. The replay attack problem discussed on the mailing list
  should be included in this work.

- Allocation of Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space: This document
  requests address space to be used for the LISP experiment as
  identifier space

- Alternate mapping system designs: Develop alternative mapping
  designs to be tested.

- Data models for management of LISP.

The first three items need to be completed first before other items
can be submitted as RFCs. The three first documents also need to
complement each other, by describing how the architecture supports a
solution for a particular problem area and how the solution can be
deployed to help with that problem.

In addition, if work chartered in some other IETF WG requires changes
in the LISP base protocol or any items which directly impact LISP
protocol structures, then the LISP WG is chartered to work on such
changes.

It is expected that the results of specifying, implementing, and testing
LISP will be fed to the general efforts at the IETF and IRTF to
understand which type of a solution is optimal. The LISP WG is not
chartered to develop a standard solution for solving the routing
scalability problem at this time. The specifications developed by the WG
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.

Goals and Milestones

September 2012: Submit an architecture description to the IESG for
publication as an Experimental RFC

September 2012: Submit a deployment model document to the IESG for
publication as an Experimental RFC

September 2012: Submit a LISP impact discussion document to the IESG
for publication as an Experimental RFC

October 2012: Submit a LISP threats analysis document to the IESG for
publication as an Experimental RFC

October 2012: Submit an EID allocation document to the IESG for
publication as an Experimental RFC

January 2013: Submit an lternate mapping system designs to the IESG
for publication as an Experimental RFC

March 2013: Submit a data model (e.g., a MIB) document to the IESG for
publication as an Experimental RFC