Routing over Large Clouds (rolc) Concluded WG
Note: The data for concluded WGs is occasionally incorrect.
|WG||Name||Routing over Large Clouds|
|Area||Routing Area (rtg)|
|Dependencies||Document dependency graph (SVG)|
Charter for Working Group
NOTE: This WG combined with IPATM to form the ION WG.
Summary: This group is created to analyse and propose solutions to
those problems that arise when trying to perform IP routing over large
``shared media'' networks. Examples of these networks include SMDS,
Relay, X.25, and ATM.
Internetwork Layer: To avoid confusion with multiple meanings of
``network'' layer, we will use the term ``Internetwork'' layer to
unambiguously refer to that layer at which IP runs. This is the
layer at which IP routing functions. This is also the layer at which
CLNP, DECnet, etc. run.
Large cloud: A collection of ``end-points'' be they routers or hosts,
connected over a fabric such that communication can be established,
in the absence of policy restrictions, between any two such
entities. This communication within a cloud takes place using
addressing and capabilities below the ``Internetwork'' layer.
The connectivity may or may not require circuit setup before
communication. Such a collection is considered large if it is
infeasible for all routing entities on such a ``cloud'' to maintain
``adjacencies'' with all others. Examples include, but are not limited
to, ATM, Frame Relay, SMDS, and X.25 public services.
The group will investigate the operation of IP routing protocols and
services over ``Large Clouds.'' Whenever possible, solutions shall be
applicable to a range of ``cloud'' services. That is, the goal is a
single solution applicable to multiple kinds of large ``clouds'' be they
public or private, and independent of the specific technology used to
realize the ``cloud'' (even a very large bridged Ethernet). It is also
objective that solutions, where possible, apply to network layer
protocols other than IP.
The problems the group will cover are:
A) The architectural implications of allowing direct communication
between entities which do not share a common IP network number. The
group will also entertain proposals on the use of a common IP network
number. If (as many believe) it is infeasible, an effort to document
the difficulties will be made.
B) The routing/information protocol required to allow direct
communication between two entities which were not directly
exchanging routing information. This will include address
resolution. The solution must couple closely to routing. It must
take into account realistic connectivity policies.
C) Operation of existing protocols between peers on such clouds. Are
any changes necessary or desirable? If changes are required, they
be proposed to the relevant working group.
D) Consideration of how policy restrictions and constraints (such as
access control and policy-based routing paths) affect A, B, and C.
The group will also review the applicability of the work to ISDN and
POTS. These technologies have a prima-facia difference, in that the
number of simultaneous connections is much smaller. The implications of
this for routing and relaying at the Internetwork layer will need to be
|Dec 1995||Submit companion analysis document to IESG.|
|Jul 1995||Submit NHRP document to IESG as a Proposed Standard.|
|Done||Meet at San Jose, put finishing touches on NHRP, plan implementations and analysis document.|
|Done||Next Internet-Draft of NHRP circulated and discussed electronically.|
|Done||Completed and discussed second draft of NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol.|
|Done||Completed NBMA Address Resolution Protocol Internet-Draft. Multiple implementations in progress. Working Group recommended that the specification be issued as an Experimental RFC.|
|Done||Release initial proposal for problem B.|
|Done||Discussed problem A in reference to RFC 1620, concluded that given a well-specified use, IAB would allow direct communication.|
|Done||Kick off meeting of group.|