Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Impact
RFC 7834

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-lisp-impact.all@ietf.org, Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-lisp-impact@ietf.org, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Document Action: 'LISP Impact' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-lisp-impact-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'LISP Impact'
  (draft-ietf-lisp-impact-05.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah
Brungard.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-impact/


Technical Summary

 The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) aims at improving the Internet scalability
 properties leveraging on three simple principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and
 mapping. LISP comprises both a tunnel-based data plane and a distributed control plane for the
 Internet, and requires some new functionalities, such as RLOC reachability mechanisms. The
 main goal of LISP is to make the Internet more  scalable by reducing the number of prefixes
 announced in the Default Free Zone (DFZ). However, as LISP relies on mapping and encapsulation,
 it turns out that it provides more benefits than just increased scalability. LISP architecture facilitates
 routing in environments where there is little to no correlation between network endpoints and
 topological location. In service provider environment this use is evident in a range of consumer
 use cases which require an inline anchor in-order to deliver a service to a subscribers.  Inline
 anchors provide one of three types of capabilities:

  o  enable mobility of subscriber end points
  o  enable chaining of middle-box functions and services
  o  enable seamless scale-out of functions

Working Group Summary

 There was no major controversy. The WG had a debate on the impact of cache
 size, i.e., cache performance, control overhead and scalability of control plane
 (related to results published in one particular research paper [CCD12]), which
 triggered two revisions of the document. 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 
   Yes, there are multiple implementations of LISP (at least 3)
  
  Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
  the specification?
  At least one major vendor (Cisco) has already implemented LISP specification. 
 
  Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
  substantive issues?
  Review by Ross Callon triggered two revisions of the document but without major changes.
  Reviewer was satisfied with version 03 of the document

  If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)?
  In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
  This document does not require a MIB doctor

Personnel
Wassim Haddad is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Deborah Brungard.