The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.06 - Nov.-Dec. (2012 vol.16)
pp: 14-21
The Internet was designed to interconnect a few hundreds networks, but now has more than a billion hosts. The scalability issues associated with this growth have driven both academia and industry to review the current architecture in the light of the Locator/Identifier Split paradigm. However, changing the routing and addressing architecture of the Internet in an incrementally deployable manner imposes several constraints. The authors use the IETF's Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) as a reference to describe different design choices necessary to achieve deployability, which is the ultimate goal of any future Internet architecture.
routing protocols, Internet, Internet architecture, deployable Internet, locator/identifier separation protocol, scalability issues, locator split paradigm, identifier split paradigm, routing architecture, addressing architecture, IETF, LISP, deployability, Internet, IP networks, Protocols, Routing, Scalability, Servers, Virtual private networks, architectures. LISP, Internet, IP networks, Protocols, Routing, Scalability, Servers, Virtual private networks, locator/identifier separation protocol, emerging technologies, communication, networking, information technology, standards, protocol architecture, Internet, routers
D. Saucez, L. Iannone, O. Bonaventure, D. Farinacci, "Designing a Deployable Internet: The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol", IEEE Internet Computing, vol.16, no. 6, pp. 14-21, Nov.-Dec. 2012, doi:10.1109/MIC.2012.98
1. D. Meyer, L. Zhang, and K. Fall, Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing, IETF RFC 4984, Sep. 2007;
2. B. Quoitin et al., “Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier Separation,” Proc. 2nd ACM/IEEE Int'l Workshop Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (MobiArch 07), ACM, 2007, article 5.
3. L. Iannone and T. Levä, “Modeling the Economics of Loc/ID Split for the Future Internet,” Towards the Future Internet — Emerging Trends from the European Research, IOS Press, 2010, pp. 11–20.
4. T. Li, Recommendation for a Routing Architecture, IETF RFC 6115, Feb. 2011;
5. D. Saucez et al., “Interdomain Traffic Engineering in a Locator/Identifier Separation Context,” Proc. Internet Network Management Workshop (INM 08), IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–6.
6. L. Iannone and O. Bonaventure, “On the Cost of Caching Locator/ID Mappings,” Proc. ACM CoNEXT Conf. (CoNEXT 07), ACM, 2007.
7. J. Kim, L. Iannone, and A. Feldmann, “Deep Dive into the LISP Cache and What ISPs Should Know about It,” Proc. IFIP Int'l Conf. Networking (Networking 11), Springer-Verlag, 2011, pp. 367–378.
8. L. Jakab et al., “LISP-TREE: A DNS Hierarchy to Support the LISP Mapping System,” IEEE J. Selected Areas in Comm., vol. 28, no. 8, 2010, pp. 1332–1343.
9. D. Thaler and B. Aboba, What Makes for a Successful Protocol? IETF RFC 5218, July 2008;
10. M. Handley, “Why the Internet Only Just Works,” BT Technology J., vol. 24, no. 3, July 2006, pp. 119–129.
11. R. Hinden, New Scheme for Internet Routing and Addressing (ENCAPS) for IPNG, IETF RFC 1955, June 1996;
12. D. Farinacci et al., “Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP),” IETF Internet draft, May 2012, work in progress.
13. D. Meyer, “The Locator Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP),” Internet Protocol J., vol. 11, no. 1, Mar. 2008, pp. 23–36.
14. D. Farinacci and V. Fuller, “LISP Map Server Interface,” IETF Internet draft, Mar. 2012, work in progress.
15. D. Farinacci et al., “LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT),” IETF Internet draft, Dec. 2011, work in progress.
16. V. Fuller, D. Lewis, and D. Farinacci, “LISP Delegated Database Tree,” IETF Internet draft, Mar. 2012, work in progress.
17. D. Lewis et al., “Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6,” IETF Internet draft, Mar. 2012, work in progress.
18. E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), IETF RFC 4364, Feb. 2006; (updated by RFCs 4577, 4684, 5462).
19. D. Farinacci, D. Meyer, and J. Snijders, “LISP Canonical Address Format,” IETF Internet draft, Mar. 2012, work in progress.
20. D. Farinacci et al., “LISP Mobile Node,” IETF Internet draft, Apr. 2012, work in progress.
31 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool