Terry, > After a receiving the suggestions from Yakov and John, emailing some ADs, > the draft charter is as follows: > > Please review, and highlight any areas missed. I'd like to close this off by > next Friday (9th Dec), and pass to our AD. > > 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 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 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. > > LISP supports the separation of the IPv4 and IPv6 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 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 is chartered to work on the LISP base protocol and any items > which directly impact LISP including any base protocol changes required to > enable VPN and mobile topologies (precise operational definitions of > these topologies should be left for IETF WGs focused on these technologies).
With respect to chartering LISP WG to work on the LISP "base protocol changes required to enable VPN", if these changes have to do with enabling L2 VPNs, then such work should be done in L2VPN WG. If these changes have to do with enabling L3 VPN, then such work should be done in L3VPN WG. In both of these cases the outcome of this work could be reviewed by the LISP WG. The same should apply to work on enaling "mobile topoligies". With this in mind I propose to replace the above sentence with the following: The LISP WG is chartered to work on the LISP base protocol and any items which directly impact LISP and are related to using LISP for improving Internet routing scalability. Yakov. > 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 LISP > and the various LISP 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 as well as the > manageability and operability of LISP. > > > Goals and Milestones > > > Jun 2012 Forward draft-ietf-lisp-mib to the IESG > > Jun 2012 Forward draft-ietf-lisp-sec to the IESG > Jun 2012 Forward to the IESG an operational document which should > include cache management and ETR synchronization > techniques (draft-ietf-lisp-deployment). > Dec 2013 Publish an example cache management specification. > Dec 2013 Forward to the IESG an evaluation of the security threat to > cache maintenance (draft-ietf-lisp-threats) > Dec 2013 Forward to the IESG a document addressing the areas which > require further experimentation. > Jun 2014 Evaluate the applicability and coverage for LISP from a > reuse of SIDR technology. > Jun 2014 Summarize results of specifying, implementing, and testing > LISP and forward to IESG and/or IRTF. > Jun 2014 Analyze and document the implications of LISP deployments in > Internet topologies and forward to IESG for publication. > Dec 2014 Re-charter or close > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
