Here are my comments. See inline. > On Oct 5, 2022, at 1:39 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Padma and myself did work on an first draft of a possible new charter for the > LISP WG. > > We need now input from you about what is missing or what is not there. > > The charter can be found at: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PbvubD9kXAxqtUCe37n8suC5b-jZ_aGmVv6TAt89VIA/edit > > And also hereafter. > Please share your thoughts on the mailing list. > > Ciao > > L. > 2022 Charter for LISP Working Group > LISP supports a routing architecture which decouples the routing 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 routers that do not directly > participate in the LISP deployment. LISP aims for an incrementally deployable > protocol.
I would add "LISP aims for an incrementally deployable protocol so new features and services can be added easily and quickly to the network using overlays." > The scope of the LISP technology is potentially applicable to have a large > span, including unicast and multicast overlays at Layer 2 as well as at > Layer 3, encompassing NAT traversal, VPNs, and supporting mobility as a > general feature, independently of whether it is a mobile user or a migrating > Virtual Machine (VM). Hence, the LISP technology is applicable in both Data > Centers, public Internet, and global private network environments. You indicate "both" but have 3 examples. I would restate: Hence, LISP technology is applicable to run in data centers, the public Internet, global private network environments, as well as other infrastructures like 3GPP, satellite, ICAO, and LoRA/CATM (IoT) based native infrastructures. > The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP protocol and produce > standard-track documents. The group will review the current set of Working > Group documents to identify potential standards-track documents and do the > necessary enhancements to support standards-track. > In parallel with the previous main work item, the LISP WG will work on the > items listed below: > > • Multi-Protocol Mapping System: Specifying the required extensions to > support multi-protocol encapsulation (e.g., L2 or NSH (Network Service > Headers). Rather than developing new encapsulations the work will aim at > using existing well-established encapsulations. By extending LISP with new > multi-protocols support, it becomes necessary to develop the required mapping > function and control plane extensions to operate LISP map-assisted networks > (which might include Hierarchical Pull, Publish/Subscribe, or Push models, > independent mapping systems interconnection, security extensions, or > alternative transports of the LISP control protocol). > • Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenarios include mobile nodes (in > mobile environments) or Virtual Machines (VMs in data centers), hence, > support needs to be provided in order to achieve seamless connectivity. This > work item may benefit from experience of other Working Groups like DMM > (Distributed Mobility Management) or NVO3 (for VM migration). > • Data-Plane Encryption: In some scenarios, it may be desirable to > encrypt LISP encapsulated traffic. In this case, the data-plane encryption > mechanism itself and support for control-plane security material exchange > needs to be specified. Any solution proposed in this work item has to be > reviewed by security experts. > • NAT-Traversal: Support for NAT-traversal solution in deployments > where LISP tunnel routers are separated from correspondent tunnel routers by > a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node). > • Models for managing the LISP protocol and deployments that include > data models, OAM, as well as allowing for programmable management interfaces. > These management methods should be considered for both the data-plane, > control plane, and mapping system components of standards-track documents. I would add this because its very important: o New ways to scale and secure the LISP protocol and its deployment use-cases as more operational experience is obtained. > Documents for these work items will as well target standard-track unless the > document is of a different maturity level (e.g., Informational or > Experimental). In the latter case, the Working Group will evaluate the > maturity level and propose a recommended track for the document. > > Collaboration with other working groups, as stated in the different work > items (e.g., PIM, NVO3, DMM, SFC), is important Add mboned, intarea, rtgwg IMO, and arguably saag. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
