Separation Protocol of Locator and Identifier Towards IPv6
draft-yu-v6ops-split6-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | haisheng yu | ||
| Last updated | 2021-06-27 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-yu-v6ops-split6-00
Network Working Group H. Yu
Internet-Draft BIIGroup
Intended status: Informational june 29, 2021
Expires: December 31, 2021
Separation Protocol of Locator and Identifier Towards IPv6
draft-yu-v6ops-split6-00
Abstract
In the current TCP/IP architecture, the IPv6 address has a dual
meaning in semantics. It not only represents the topological
location of the network node, but also the identity of the node,
which is usually referred to as the semantic overload problem of the
IP address. The semantically overloaded IP address represents the
topological position of the network, and the topological position of
the network generally does not move, so the device entering the new
network environment needs to replace the new identity IP to adapt to
the change of the topological position. The semantic overload of IP
addresses is not conducive to supporting mobility and user identity
authentication, resulting in tight storage space for routing
equipment, lack of unified communication identification for network
equipment, and difficulties in network traceability and management.
In order to solve the problem of IP address semantic overload, this
project focuses on the separation technology SPLIT6 of IP address
identity and location.
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] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
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 https://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
Yu Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SPLIT6 june 2021
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 December 31, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://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
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. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction
In the current Internet architecture, the IPv6 address carries too
much semantics. The network layer protocol uses the IPv6 address as
the location identifier of the user terminal, and the transport layer
protocol uses the IPv6 address as the identity identifier of the user
terminal. This dual identity of the IPv6 address cannot satisfy the
Internet's increasing mobility and security requirements.
In order to solve these problems caused by the semantic overload of
IPv6 addresses, separating the location information and identity
information of IPv6 addresses has become an important research
direction.
Yu Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SPLIT6 june 2021
2. Security Considerations
3. IANA Considerations
This document does not include an IANA request.
4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge XXX for their valuable review
and comments.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
Author's Address
Haisheng Yu
BIIGroup
Beijing
China
Email: hsyu@biigroup.cn
Yu Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 3]