-- LISP BoF - IETF-74 - Chairs Darrel Lewis/Sam Hartman jabber: lisp@jabber.ietf.org 1) Agenda Bashing - Darrel Lewis no additional agenda info Introduction by Jari about status of WG, while it isn't officially formed, his view is the time is better spent as a WG than a BoF. Wasn't time to complete the process prior to the meeting in SF, the final decision of WG status by the IESG is pending. 2) Charter Discussion - Sam Hartman Sam Hartman - Accurately describe what LISP separates EID/LOC split discussion Changes - End Site Identifier vs End System Identifier Discuss end host changes are out of scope Focus on incremental deployability Concerns - endsite-identifier problematic idenitify vs identifier (multiple interfaces no a single system) (skipping ahead by co-chair) Charter(3) question from the floor - 'Global portion and local portion' is confusing Perhaps re-word this away from 'global'... Discussion of Noel's email about the charter Comments on whether the listeners think this should be chartered as a WG ietf-list Quesiton from the floor - HIP interrelationship/interworking with this WG Answer - HIP is focused on the end-station, forcing host-based changes at the expense of router changes (not changing routers/routing) Comment from the floor - Identify in HIP vs Identifier in LISP, can we use different terms for this? There is term collision, which is confusing. Chair - Focus please on how the charter is unclear, not how wording isn't clear. Comment - HIP/LISP id/loc split is nicely sited in the Charter's link to the IAB document about id/loc split Chair - Perhaps HIP == host-based loc/id split LISP == network-based loc/split Comment - Please accurately describe 'what we are doing', attempt to reach consensus on terminology and charter. 3) LISP Draft review - Dino Farinacci current draft discussions - draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt - 01/2007 - fallout from the 2006 IAB Workshop draft-farinacci-lisp-01.txt - draft-farinacci-lisp-02.txt - editorial changes 03.txt - clarified for both AFI's 04.txt - mobility considerations 05.txt - added control/data ports + ALT discussion 06.txt - defined data-probes + MTU + referenced external docs (see slides) 07.txt - More clarification of EID, added multicast support 08.txt - 04/2008 - more discussion on EID 09.txt - 10/2008 - clarification on EID-prefix 10.txt - 11/2008 - added traceroute bits, indicated where LISP could run 11.txt - 12/2008 - added stateful + stateless MTU considerations (Question on MTU pushed to end) clarified where this should be used, small multi-homed sites 12.txt - 03/2009 - talk about map server cache state issues Doc Status - Fairly Stable, implemented 1.5-2 full systems, packet format is stable Possibly adding network management fields, as-name/as-number Open policy - LISP is open, no IPR claims, all volunteer effort from vendors/ops/researchers/inventors Peer review from many external folks (Noel/Vint/DaveClark/PaulMockapetris/LenBosack) MTU Issues/Questions - Stateless case - DF=0 means we can't drop the packet, must handle Frag packet, pass along to the end for reassembly In the end, the MTU discussion needs more work, please move to list. HIP vs LISP discussion, how does HIP deal with ipv4 - HIP Proxy being pushed to move along away from HIP discussion(s) Chair - Looking for reviews from: Transport, HIP, Security ... at least 4) What is LISP+ALT - Vince Fuller Split of what namespaces are used where: EID - local site RLOC - Internet-at-large Mappings of EID -> RLOC happen at the ETR (Egress Tunnel Router) Discussion of the LISP+ALT workings (see animated slides) Document History - 11/2007 -> current Spec stable since 10/2008 Working code today on NXos systems with 6+months of testing/experimentation on live network. Need more implementations, more testing, more experimentation Need to discuss at least: cache in ITR, negative cache replies What further review do we need/want here: Focus on completion of this WG/BoF focus on LISP+ALT only Security focus on LISP, ALT and the entire LISP+ALT system map-replies/map-requests have alternate security implications 5) LISP Map Server Draft discussion - Vince Fuller draft-fuller-lisp--ms-00.txt Eliminate ALT complexities in xTR's Map-Servers are co-located in the LISP-ALT routers, not required though. Map-Server/Map-Resolver - Resolver accepts Request from ITR to make the EID-to-RLOC mapping Server accepts request from the ALT, forwarding that to the ETR. ETR's are still authoritative for EID-RLOC mappings Map-Server is now a cache-layer See slides for illustration(s) For Future work - Negative caching (cache-management in general) caching in map-resolvers Questions about pushing this into a WG draft vs more individual works For ALT + MapServer: Some consensus to move this to a WG Draft Questions about 'is this a BoF or a WG?' More discussions about 'experiment before direction/decision' vs 'direction decision before experimentation' Incremental changes to current techniques, focus on less complexity Evaluation of complexity is possible says Dave Oran, forthcoming message to the list about measuring this. Jarri clarifies - BoF slot, the slot being run as a WG. 6) Interworking Mechanisms - darrel lewis draft-lewis-lisp-internetworking-02.txt Proxy Tunnel Routers (PTR) Originates few EID prefixes traffic is assymetrical ingress only allows lisp sites to see benefits of ingress TE immediately Placement as close to the traffic-source == less stretch LISP-NAT - this is still NAT, that's good and bad, possibly useful for broadband interworking deployments Status/further-work PTRs and uRPF considerations Should work come for Broadband interworking? LISP-NAT for IPv6 as well? PTR behaviours and scaling - anycast? implementations in hardware? cache-management concerns and testing External Reviews - general security reviews? review by 6to4 implementors as well Call to bring this into a WG document. 7) LISP Multicast - dino draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt - 04/2008 Result is a simple procedural change to PIM (S-EID,G) in reciever domains (S-RLOC,G) in core -01 posted 11/2008 No current implementations Need expert mcast implementor review Presented in PIM + MBoned WGs. Call for picking this up as a WG doc - Chair Sucker Search - Sam Securing the Mapping System - draft necessary 2 callers interested Security Analysis of LISP/ALT Network Management 8) LISP Mapping Versioning - Luigi Iannone Requirement for versioning of the Mapping database see slides for animation(s) Use this as a method to find unauthorized path generation in the mapping database (drop on version larger than currently known version) Use this as a method to update the end site mapping databases (notify on version lower than currently known version) Accept benign version equality Today we have SMR + Reachability bits already in LISP Reachability Bits - hints, when these change, require map-request to be sent SMR - With versioning though - in the data-plane we can know directly when a map request is required, less control-plane complexity, and the same complexity to the data-plane processing Data driven updates to the mapping database, no monitoring required at all xTR devices. (more illustrations/animations - see slides) Alternate LISP Header changes potentially to enable the version marking Comments - Dino - what about alt-4 - nonce overload DaveOran - linkstate mapping overloaded onto the LISP Mapping keep in mind what has come before - isis linkstate issues Dino - clarifications on terminology Call to WG adopt this? More discussion on-list required at this time. 9) Next Steps / Open Discussion Discussions on applicability, deployability, status of the WG/BoF/whatever-this-is-today Management vs MIB work, where can you see all the parts that are important. Possibility add instead of 'Network Management' - Operations + Management Impact on upper layers Dave Harrington - OpsAWG WG Doc to think about management of the protocol Discussion of rate + state based on huston-graphs/data This looks to address 'state' but not 'rate' dino - 'rate' addressed at the first ISP & aggregation of RLOC space 10) End Early