Routing over Large Clouds (rolc)
--------------------------------

Charter
Last Modified: 04/07/1998

Current Status: Concluded Working Group

Chair(s):
    A Malis  <[email protected]>

Routing Area Director(s):
    Bill Fenner  <[email protected]>
    Alex Zinin  <[email protected]>

Routing Area Advisor:
       <0>

Mailing Lists:
    General Discussion:[email protected]
    To Subscribe:      [email protected]
    Archive:           ftp://cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/

Description of 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,
Frame
Relay, X.25, and ATM.

Definition:
  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
an
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
will
  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
explored further.

Goals and Milestones:

  Done         Kick off meeting of group.

  Done         Discussed problem A in reference to RFC 1620, concluded
               that given a well-specified use, IAB would allow direct
               communication.

  Done         Release initial proposal for problem B.

  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         Completed and discussed second draft of NBMA Next Hop
               Resolution Protocol.

  Done         Next Internet-Draft of NHRP circulated and discussed
               electronically.

  Done         Meet at San Jose, put finishing touches on NHRP, plan
               implementations and analysis document.

  JUL 95       Submit NHRP document to IESG as a Proposed Standard.

  DEC 95       Submit companion analysis document to IESG.


Internet-Drafts:

 No Current Internet-Drafts.

Request For Comments:

 RFC   Stat Published     Title
------- -- ----------- ------------------------------------
RFC1735 E    DEC 94    NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP)

RFC1937 I    MAY 96    "Local/Remote" Forwarding Decision in Switched Data
                      Link Subnetworks