Hi Sam,
Sam Hartman schrieb:
I'd like to present the following revised charter to the community
(and with Jari's approval) to the IESG for review. This charter
represents discussion on the LISP list and in the LISP session at IETF
74.
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.
The sentence "who you are" is rather confusing to me although its
intention is certainly to be a simple and catchy explanation. However,
"you" - the user (?) is probably not an edge interface designator. "who
you are" suggests that the identifier has something to do with the
identity of some device or its owner (whoever "you" is) that would stay
the same when moving around which is clearly not the case in this context.
Wouldn't it be clearer to say: core Routing Locators (which describe
"where" an edge network is attached to the Internet core) and edge
interface designators (which describe to "which" interface a device is
attached within an edge network)? I find this easier to understand and
according to my understanding this is 100% in line with the third
paragraph of the charter.
What's LISP's intended functionality beyond a protocol to separate core
routing locators (RLocs) and edge interface designators (EIDs)? At
least, this way all acronyms can be saved without keeping the ambiguous
and misleading word identifier. Or is that too narrow minded and am I
missing potential future extensions of LISP that are not documented in
the charter?
Well, it's probably too late for changes anyway.
Just my 2 cents,
Michael
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
be used by de-capsulation devices to 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) as well as the
manageability and operability of LISP.
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
lisp@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
--
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:menth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf