Routing and Addressing (ROAP) BOF THURSDAY, March 22, 2007 09:00 - 11:30 Congress II (Note: This is currently listed in the agenda as the intarea meeting.) ADs: Jari Arkko (jari.arkko@piuha.net) Mark Townsley (townsley@cisco.com) Chairs: Thomas Narten (narten@us.ibm.com) Peter Schoenmaker (pds@ntt.net) Mailing list: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram DESCRIPTION This is an architectural discussion about future IETF work on identifier-locator split and multi-level locator designs that may help issues with routing scalability and be useful in other ways, in the long term. It is BOF run within the Internet Area open meeting. The intent of the BOF is not to immediately create a working group, but to talk about whether a new identifier-locator split or multi-level locator based mechanism would help routing scalability and what the desired properties and boundaries of a new design might be. The discussion is expected to be architectural, i.e., focus on high level design decisions and not specific protocol bits. Assuming that the meeting and ongoing list discussion converges on the desirability of a new design and the properties thereof, it is expected that a working group will be created around the IETF-69 timeframe. Specific protocol proposals are out of scope for BOF discussion. However, new designs are very welcome in this space and it is important to learn how the designs work with real-life devices and applications. It is expected that experimental specifications for early proposals will be appear in parallel with ongoing architectural work. The routing scalability problem has been described in Section 7 of [REPORT]. The causes and nature of the problem are fairly well understood and agreed. However, there is less agreement on whether the problem is urgent and how the growth rates in the routing table compare to our ability to improve hardware. There is cause for optimism with regards to the short to medium term ability to build more scalable router architectures [SCUDDER]. Specific discussion of the urgency of the problem (or lack thereof) is out of scope for the BOF, however. It is nevertheless clear that the current routing system scales according to the number of prefixes that are also used as end system identifiers in addresses. Can the IETF develop a model where this would not be needed? This BOF focuses on the use of an identifier-locator split or multi-level locator design to, among other things, improve the scalability of the routing system. Note that such improvements are useful even if one considers the current scalability problem to be sufficiently addressed by hardware improvements. For instance, a design that allows the system to scale better allows us to increase the throughput on a given amount of hardware resources, allow easy renumbering or multihoming for more customers than those currently capable of getting it, and so on. The BOF also takes it as given that there are existing IETF and IRTF designs in this space, such as HIP and SHIM6. It makes little sense to repeat these efforts for exactly the same type of functionality. As a result, the BOF focuses discussing what new functionality or deployment approaches may be needed that justifies building new mechanisms or extending the existing ones. Finally, the BOF should take it as given that new designs need to work for both IPv4 and IPv6 and that they need to be able to work with existing unmodified hosts, do not change the core Internet routing infrastructure, do not expect changes from applications, have support for dealing with referrals, and be incrementally deployable. Note that the above scope excludes many interesting topics and research from this discussion. Scoping is necessary, however, to achieve something that can reasonably efficiently be specified and deployed in the current Internet. There are other forums (such as [RRG]) that look further into the future, including considering so called "clean slate" designs. AGENDA 1. Administrative (chairs, 5 min) - notes takers - agenda bash - blue sheets 2. Scoping the BOF (ADs, 10 min) - Why we are here? - What's in scope? - What's out of scope? 3. Routing issues where id-loc split might play a role (David Ward and John Scudder, 20 min) - What properties should a solution have, if it it is going to help routing scalability? - Traffic engineering requirements - Role of identifier-locator split vs. general engineering improvements such as faster hardware 4. Architecture and design space discussion (Dave Thaler, 45 min) - Reasons for doing an identifier-locator split - Design alternatives - Architectural tradeoffs - Application impacts - Balancing costs and benefits - Deployment 5. Solution space (Pekka Nikander, 15 min) - How do the existing or proposed solutions fulfill the different types of needs? - A case for one or multiple solutions? 6. Open discussion (45 min) 7. Conclusions and next steps (10 min, chairs & ADs) READING LIST PROBLEM [REPORT] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-raws-report-01.txt [SCUDDER] http://submission.apricot.net/chatter07/slides/future_of_routing/apia-future-routing-john-scudder.pdf, http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-scudder.pdf [JAEGGLI1] http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/bof-report.pdf [JAEGGLI2] http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-editorial.pdf [NANOG] http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/jaeggli.html [FULLER] http://submission.apricot.net/chatter07/slides/future_of_routing/apia-future-routing-vince-fuller.pdf [BAKER] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-v6ops-l3-multihoming-analysis-00 [HUSTONCOL] http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2006-11/raw.html OTHER ACTIVITIES [PLENARY] http://www.arkko.com/ietf/ietf-68/ietf68_roap_agenda.txt [RTGAREA] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/rtgarea.txt [RRG] http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/RRG DESIGN SPACE ANALYSIS [DMM] http://submission.apricot.net/chatter07/slides/future_of_routing/apia-future-routing-dmm-locid.pdf [NIKANDER] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nikander-ram-ilse [PROXY] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nikander-ram-generix-proxying [MULTI6] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4218.txt [THREAT] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-lisp-threat [ENDPOINTS] http://ana.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc//tech/endpoints.txt [OECD] http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/7/37985661.pdf [ARKKO] http://submission.apricot.net/chatter07/slides/future_of_routing/apia-future-routing-jari-arkko.pdf [AZINGER] http://www.nro.org/documents/pdf/MultihomeIPv6procon.pdf (A few more expected soon) RECENT SOLUTIONS [EFIT] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wang-ietf-efit-00.txt [HIP] Multiple RFCs/drafts, see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html [LISP] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farinacci-lisp [NEMO] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-multihome-fixed-network-03 [PASH] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nikander-ram-pash [PSHIM6] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-pshim6 [SHIM6] Multiple drafts, see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/shim6-charter.html [TIDR] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-adan-idr-tidr-01.txt [IPVLX] Multiple RFCs/drafts, see http://ipvlx.org HISTORICAL REFERENCES [NIMROD] http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/nimrod/docs.html [GSE] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-odell-8+8-00.txt, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipngwg-gseaddr-00.txt, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-05.txt (As an example; there's more)