# # LISP BOF Proposal # # David Meyer # dmm@1-4-5.net # Mon Feb 2 07:51:34 2009 # # $Header: /home/dmm/lisp/IETF/RCS/lisp.bof,v 1.4 2009/02/05 18:26:28 dmm Exp $ # LISP BOF (LISP) =============== Name: LISP BOF (LISP) Area: Internet Conflicts: PIM, IDR, SOFTWIRE, SHIM6, GROW, SIDR, INT-AREA open meeting, RRG meeting, and the NAT66 and RANGER BOFs, if scheduled Expected attendance: 100+ Special requests: none Number of Slots: one Timeslot: 2 hours Chairs: Darrel Lewis + TBD Mailing List: lisp@ietf.org AGENDA ------ 5 min Administrivia Lewis - Scribes - Agenda Bashing 15 min Scope of the BOF Chairs/ADs - Motivation and problem statement presentation 5 min Mailing List(s) Activity Report Meyer 15 min LISP Design Goals and Objectives Farinacci 10 min OPENLISP status Iannone 15 min LISP Deployment Status Fuller 30 min Consensus and Charter discussion Chairs/ADs - Consensus - Work Items/Milestones - Interaction with other WGs and RRG 25 min Conclusion and next steps Chairs/ADs BOF DESCRIPTION --------------- The IAB's October 2006 workshop on Routing and Addressing Workshop [0] 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" (frequently referred to as Loc/ID split). The basic idea behind the Loc/ID split is that the Internet architecture combines two functions, Routing Locators, or RLOCs (where you are attached to the network) and Endpoint Identifiers, or EIDs (who you are) in one number space: The IP address. Proponents of the Loc/ID split postulate that splitting these functions apart will yield several advantages, including improved scalability for the routing system via improved aggregation of RLOCs. However, in order to be efficiently aggregated, RLOCs must be allocated in a way that is congruent with the topology of the network ("Rekhter's Law"). Today's Provider Allocated IP address space is an example of this kind of allocation scheme. EIDs, on the other hand, are typically allocated along organizational boundaries. Since the network topology and organizational hierarchies are rarely congruent, it is difficult (if not impossible) to make a single number space efficiently serve both purposes. In summary, the Loc/ID split aims to decouple location and identity, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the RLOC space, providing persistent identity in the EID space and in some cases to providing for secure and efficient mobility. The LISP protocol is an instantiation of the separation of Internet address space into Endpoint Identifiers and Routing Locators through deployment of a network-based map-and-encap scheme. LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the WG is to work on the design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system [2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast [6]. 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 (presumably using technology developed in the SIDR working group) and/or other mapping systems. Description of Proposed Working Group ------------------------------------- LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) Last Modified: 2009-02-02 Chair(s): Darrel Lewis TBD Internet Area Director(s): Jari Arkko Mark Townsley Routing Area Advisor: TBD Secretary: TBD Mailing Lists: General Discussion: lisp@ietf.org Description of Working Group: The IAB's October 2006 workshop on Routing and Addressing Workshop [0] 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" (frequently referred to as Loc/ID split). The basic idea behind the Loc/ID split is that the Internet architecture combines two functions, Routing Locators, or RLOCs (where you are attached to the network) and Endpoint Identifiers, or EIDs (who you are) in one number space: The IP address. Proponents of the Loc/ID split postulate that splitting these functions apart will yield several advantages, including improved scalability for the routing system via improved aggregation of RLOCs. However, in order to be efficiently aggregated, RLOCs must be allocated in a way that is congruent with the topology of the network ("Rekhter's Law"). Today's Provider Allocated IP address space is an example of this kind of allocation scheme. EIDs, on the other hand, are typically allocated along organizational boundaries. Since the network topology and organizational hierarchies are rarely congruent, it is difficult (if not impossible) to make a single number space efficiently serve both purposes. In summary, the Loc/ID split aims to decouple location and identity, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the RLOC space, providing persistent identity in the EID space and in some cases to providing for secure and efficient mobility. The LISP protocol is an instantiation of the separation of Internet address space into Endpoint Identifiers and Routing Locators through deployment of a network-based map-and-encap scheme. LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the WG is to work on the design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system [2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast [6]. 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 (presumably using technology developed in the SIDR working group) and/or other mapping systems. Goals and Milestones: Mar 2010 Submit base LISP specification to the IESG for Experimental. Mar 2010 Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for Experimental. Mar 2010 Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG for Experimental. June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Securing the LISP Mapping System to the IESG for Experimental. Jul 2010 Submit LISP for Multicast Environments to the IESG for Experimental. Jul 2010 Submit a preliminary analysis of how the LISP protocols (LISP base protocol, LISP+ALT mapping system, and LISP multicast) address the Design Goals for Scalable Internet Routing [7]. Aug 2010 Re-charter or close. Internet-Drafts: draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt draft-fuller-lisp-alt-04.txt draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt Request For Comments: None References ---------- [0] Meyer, D. et. al., "Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984. [1] Farinacci, D. et. al., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt. [2] Fuller, V., et. al., "LISP Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)", draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt [3] Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-00.txt. [4] Lewis, D., et. al., "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6", draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt. [5] Mathy, L., et. al., "LISP-DHT: Towards a DHT to map identifiers onto locators", draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt. [6] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "LISP for Multicast Environments", draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt. [7] T. Li, Ed., "Design Goals for Scalable Internet Routing", draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01, IRTF, July 2007.