Internet-Draft SPLIT6 June 2021
Yu Expires 31 December 2021 [Page]
Network Working Group
Intended Status:
H. Yu

Separation Protocol of Locator and Identifier Towards IPv6


In the current TCP/IP architecture, the IPv6 address has a dual meaning in semantics. It not only represents the topological location of the network node, but also the identity of the node, which is usually referred to as the semantic overload problem of the IP address. The semantically overloaded IP address represents the topological position of the network, and the topological position of the network generally does not move, so the device entering the new network environment needs to replace the new identity IP to adapt to the change of the topological position. The semantic overload of IP addresses is not conducive to supporting mobility and user identity authentication, resulting in tight storage space for routing equipment, lack of unified communication identification for network equipment, and difficulties in network traceability and management. In order to solve the problem of IP address semantic overload, this project focuses on the separation technology SPLIT6 of IP address identity and location.

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 December 2021.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

In the current Internet architecture, the IPv6 address carries too much semantics. The network layer protocol uses the IPv6 address as the location identifier of the user terminal, and the transport layer protocol uses the IPv6 address as the identity identifier of the user terminal. This dual identity of the IPv6 address cannot satisfy the Internet's increasing mobility and security requirements.

In order to solve these problems caused by the semantic overload of IPv6 addresses, separating the location information and identity information of IPv6 addresses has become an important research direction.

2. Security Considerations

3. IANA Considerations

This document does not include an IANA request.

4. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge XXX for their valuable review and comments.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <>.

5.2. Informative References

Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, , <>.

Author's Address

Haisheng Yu