> 1/ To steer efforts toward that goal, we would like each proposal to
> make a concise summary, preferably no longer than ~1000 words (it
> may contain pointer to more detailed document), that describes the
> key ideas of the proposal of exactly how it addresses routing
> scalability issue, where is its cost, and where is its gain.
Lixia, Tony-
Here is the response for LISP.
--Vince
(on behalf of the other LISP authors: Dino, Dave, and Darrel)
--------------------
proposal:
---------
Locator Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP)
key idea:
---------
Implements a locator-identifier separation mechanism using encapsulation
between routers at the "edge" of the Internet. Such a separation allows
topological aggregation of the routeable addresses (locators) while
providing stable and portable numbering of end systems (identifiers).
gains:
------
- topological aggregation of numbering space (RLOCs) used for routing,
which greatly reduces both the overall size and the "churn rate" of
the information needed to operate the Internet global routing system
- seperate numbering space (EIDs) for end-systems, effectively allowing "PI
for all" (no renumbering cost for connectivity changes) without adding
state to the global routing system
- improved traffic engineering capabilities that explicitly do not add
state to the global routing system and whose deployment will allow
active removal of more-specific state currently used
- no changes required to end systems
- no changes to Internet "core" routers
- minimal and straightforward changes to "edge" routers
- day-one advatanges for early adopters
- defined router-to-router protocol
- defined database mapping system
- defined deployment plan
- defined interoperability/interworking mechanisms
- defined scalable end-host mobility mechanisms
- prototype implementation already exists and undergoing testing
- production implementations in progress
costs:
------
- mapping system infrastructure (map servers, map resolvers, ALT routers)
(new potential business opportunity)
- Interworking infrastructure (proxy ITRs)
(new potential business opportunity)
- overhead for determining/maintaining locator/path liveness (common issue
for all id/loc separation proposals)
full documentation:
-------------------
draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt (LISP base specifiction, LISP WG draft)
draft-ietf-lisp-alt-01.txt (LISP+ALT mapping database, LISP WG draft)
draft-ietf-lisp-ms-02.txt (LISP Map Server, LISP WG draft)
draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-00.txt (Interworking mechanisms, LISP WG draft)
draft-meyer-lisp-mn-00.txt (LISP Mobile Node Architecture)
draft-farinacci-lisp-lig-01.txt (LISP Internet Groper debugging tool)
draft-meyer-lisp-loc-id-implications-01.txt (locator liveness considerations)
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
