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.
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 has completed the first set of Experimental RFCs describing the Locator/ID Separation Protocol. 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.
The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol, completing the ongoing work, and any items which directly impact LISP protocol structures and which are related to using LISP for improving Internet routing scalability. Specifically, the group will work on:
- Architecture description: This document will describe the architecture of the entire LISP system, making it easier to read the rest of the LISP specifications and providing a basis for discussion about the details of the LISP protocols. The document will include a description of the cache management and ETR synchronization essential characteristics needed to ensure the correct operation of the protocol.
- Deployment models: This document will describe what kind of deployments can be expected for LISP, and give operational advice on how they can be set up.
- A description of the impacts of LISP: This document will describe the problems that LISP is intended to address and the impacts that employing LISP has. While the work on LISP was initiated by Internet routing scaling concerns, there has also been an interest on improved solutions to a number of different problems, such as traffic engineering. This document should describe problem areas (such as scaling or traffic engineer) where LISP is expected to have a positive effect, as well as any tradeoffs that are caused by LISP's design.
- LISP security threats and solutions: This document will describe the security analysis of the LISP system, what issues it needs to protect against, and a solution that helps defend against those issues. The replay attack problem discussed on the mailing list should be included in this work.
- Allocation of Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space: This document requests address space to be used for the LISP experiment as identifier space
- Alternate mapping system designs: Develop alternative mapping designs to be tested.
- Data models for management of LISP.
The first three items (architecture, deployment models, impacts) need to be completed first before other items can be submitted as RFCs. The three first documents also need to complement each other, by describing how the architecture supports a solution for a particular problem area and how the solution can be deployed to help with that problem.
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.
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.
Submit a LISP impact discussion document to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC
Submit an architecture description to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC
Submit an EID allocation document to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC
Submit a LISP threats analysis document to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC
Submit an lternate mapping system designs to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC
Summarize results of specifying, implementing, and testing LISP and forward to IESG and/or IRTF.
Submit a deployment model document to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC
Submit a data model (e.g., a MIB) document to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC