[Search] [txt|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 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]