I have looked at the latest version of the new charter. We've made progress
(e.g., I liked the changes Dino suggested on removing some of the inaccurate
definitions) and I'm generally happy, except with three aspects:
o v4 runout is no longer "impending"
o the removal of the VPN etc wording has made the draft vague about what work
is exactly in scope.
o some editorial things
I have tried to fix these in the version below.
In any case, I have taken the recharter of the working group to the next IESG
telechat which IIRC is on the first Thursday in 2012. I'm sure some editing of
the version below will be needed, hopefully we can complete this before the
IESG call.
Jari
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)
-------------------------------------
Charter
Current Status: Active
Chairs:
Joel Halpern <[email protected]>
Terry Manderson <[email protected]>
Internet Area Directors:
Ralph Droms <[email protected]>
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
Secretaries:
Wassim Haddad <[email protected]>
Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email protected]
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.
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, completing the
ongoing work,
and any items which directly impact LISP protocol structures and are related
to using LISP for improving Internet routing scalability. Specifically, the
group will
work on:
- LISP security threats and solutions
- MIBs
- deployment models
- allocation of EID space
- alternate mapping system designs
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.
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 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. 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. Specifically, the group will work on:
- documenting areas that need experimentation
- summarizing the results of implementation, experiments, and deployment
experience
- describing the implications of employing LISP
- operational guidance for using 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
