idnits 2.17.1 draft-yu-v6ops-split6-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date () is 739398 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2460' is defined on line 119, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group H. Yu 3 Internet-Draft BIIGroup 4 Intended status: Informational june 29, 2021 5 Expires: December 31, 2021 7 Separation Protocol of Locator and Identifier Towards IPv6 8 draft-yu-v6ops-split6-00 10 Abstract 12 In the current TCP/IP architecture, the IPv6 address has a dual 13 meaning in semantics. It not only represents the topological 14 location of the network node, but also the identity of the node, 15 which is usually referred to as the semantic overload problem of the 16 IP address. The semantically overloaded IP address represents the 17 topological position of the network, and the topological position of 18 the network generally does not move, so the device entering the new 19 network environment needs to replace the new identity IP to adapt to 20 the change of the topological position. The semantic overload of IP 21 addresses is not conducive to supporting mobility and user identity 22 authentication, resulting in tight storage space for routing 23 equipment, lack of unified communication identification for network 24 equipment, and difficulties in network traceability and management. 25 In order to solve the problem of IP address semantic overload, this 26 project focuses on the separation technology SPLIT6 of IP address 27 identity and location. 29 Requirements Language 31 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 32 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 33 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174] 34 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 36 Status of This Memo 38 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 39 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 41 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 42 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 43 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 44 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 46 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 47 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 48 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 49 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 51 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2021. 53 Copyright Notice 55 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 56 document authors. All rights reserved. 58 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 59 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 60 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 61 publication of this document. Please review these documents 62 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 63 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 64 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 65 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 66 described in the Simplified BSD License. 68 Table of Contents 70 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 71 2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 72 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 73 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 74 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 75 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 76 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 77 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 79 1. Introduction 81 In the current Internet architecture, the IPv6 address carries too 82 much semantics. The network layer protocol uses the IPv6 address as 83 the location identifier of the user terminal, and the transport layer 84 protocol uses the IPv6 address as the identity identifier of the user 85 terminal. This dual identity of the IPv6 address cannot satisfy the 86 Internet's increasing mobility and security requirements. 88 In order to solve these problems caused by the semantic overload of 89 IPv6 addresses, separating the location information and identity 90 information of IPv6 addresses has become an important research 91 direction. 93 2. Security Considerations 95 3. IANA Considerations 97 This document does not include an IANA request. 99 4. Acknowledgements 101 The authors would like to acknowledge XXX for their valuable review 102 and comments. 104 5. References 106 5.1. Normative References 108 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 109 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 110 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 111 . 113 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 114 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 115 May 2017, . 117 5.2. Informative References 119 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 120 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, 121 December 1998, . 123 Author's Address 125 Haisheng Yu 126 BIIGroup 127 Beijing 128 China 130 Email: hsyu@biigroup.cn