Global Name Resolution Service
draft-karimi-ideas-gnrs-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-12
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          P. Karimi
Internet-Draft                                              S. Mukherjee
Intended status: Informational                        Rutgers University
Expires: September 13, 2017                               March 12, 2017

                     Global Name Resolution Service
                       draft-karimi-ideas-gnrs-00

Abstract

   This document describes the requirement of a new mapping system,
   explains why DNS was not chosen, follows the introductions of a few
   proposed new mapping system designs.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Karimi & Mukherjee     Expires September 13, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              karimi-ideas-gnrs                 March 2017

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Functional Requirements for a Mapping System  . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  The Domain Name System  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  MobilityFirst Name Resolution Service . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Separation of names, address and flat ID  . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Different Implementations of the GNRS . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.2.1.  Auspice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.2.2.  Direct Map  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.3.  G Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  GNRS summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The current Internet architecture which was designed with fixed hosts
   in mind, uses IP address to identify both the users as well as their
   locations.  This overloading of the namespace or location-identity
   conflation [RFC1498] makes deploying basic mobility services such as
   session continuity, multi-homing etc., challenging.  In order for
   future networks to natively support these services, location-
   independent communication for fixed names of various endpoint
   principal (host, content or services) is a crucial underlying
   requirement.

   Separation of names/identities from addressing/location has been
   proposed in multiple architectures to facilitate location-independent
   communication [MF], [RFC6830], [RFC4423], [XIA].  There is a need for
   an efficient resolution system that can therefore provide this
   identity to location translation for all network-attached objects.
   In the current internet a similar resolution of identities (domain
   names) to obtain network locations (IP addresses) is provided by the
   Domain Name System (DNS).  Although the DNS has historically evolved
Show full document text