[Idr] MInutes for IDR
"Susan Hares" <shares@nexthop.com> Fri, 10 December 2004 16:38 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27965; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:38:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ccntu-00005j-4p; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:45:50 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CcnfM-00072S-5J; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:30:48 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CcnaQ-0005XG-G0 for idr@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:25:43 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27141 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:25:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ccnhd-0008HP-4n for idr@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:33:10 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7C72D483A for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:25:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 04501-05-45 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:25:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.corp.nexthop.com (aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com [65.247.36.233]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2EC2D480C for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:25:03 -0500 (EST)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:25:03 -0500
Message-ID: <BE36D687C8CBFA4AB76F5CD3E3C0FB4E02BAC340@aa-exchange1.corp.nexthop.com>
Thread-Topic: MInutes for IDR
Thread-Index: AcTe1M1W6rWg0MNgQM+kkJPUpeMTcw==
From: Susan Hares <shares@nexthop.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea98052f75c8682673c96267a0eea7de
Cc: yakov@juniper.net
Subject: [Idr] MInutes for IDR
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0154699101=="
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 96ace3b0d55c752b49ad5cebce8c2b2a
Please send in comments on the minutes for IETF 61. Sue Sue Hares and Yakov Rekhter co-chaired the meeting. Yakov issued an initial OPEN, but a transmission failure of the microphone system caused his transport entity to time out. He retransmitted the OPEN and successfully peered with the attendees. Old Business ------------ Sue reviewed the status of the core BGP documents under revision: - Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) - Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) - BGP-4 Protocol Analysis - BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis - Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol - BGP MIB V1 implementation survey - BGP 4 Implementation Report There is no new internal WG progress or action required; these are awaiting IESG review. Also in the approval process are Graceful Restart and Extended Communities, both as Proposed Standards, and Cease Subcodes, to be a Draft Standard. The IESG is waiting for an implementation report on confederations. There was nothing to report on cooperative route filtering, 4-octet AS numbers, AS-based ORF, MIB 2, and AS-wide identifiers. New Business ------------ Equal Cost Multipath (Manav Bhatia, Joel Halpern) ------------------------------------------------- This was a working report on differences, not a final. The problem that the ECMP proposal intends to solve is defining a mechanism by which an implementation that installs equal cost multipath routes, but only advertises one route, can readvertise the multiple routes without breaking policies. Its basic approach is to create synthetic AS-SETS in the readvertisements. Potential benefits of the technique include avoiding certain cases of route reflector oscillation. The technique is consistent with multiprotocol extensions, using the AFI/SAFI relevant to the routes it is advertising: conventional IPv4 or VPN. It is not intended for load splitting across different AS. The consensus was that not enough WG members had read it for consensus. IPv6 over IPv4 MPLS (Francis LeFaucheur, presenter) --------------------------------------------------- The draft presents a technique, which will be coordinated with V6OPS through the ADs, for providing IPv6 service over an existing IPv4 MPLS cloud, without the cloud needing to be V6-aware. The proposed solution is intended to require no protocll extensions (see draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6). It carris labels in MP-BGP. The requiriemens are stated in draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-analysis-03.txt. Draft 04 is underway, and will clarify some MUST/SHOULD terminology, expand on the inter-AS cases, and add additional detail on security. Publication of this specification will involve coordinated documents between V6OPS and IDR, consistent where possible and different where necessary. For example, the V6OPS document will carry label SAFI/AFI while the IDR document will carry VPN SAFI/AFI. After the editorial changes are complete, the document will go out for last call and implementation survey. AS Edge Confederations (Sue Hares) ---------------------------------- This was a discussion item; the I-D did not make the cutoff. The technique described is a method for using dynamic capabilities at the edge of AS confederations, with the confederation-AS typically in a ring topology. The example was given of a confederation of satellite-based confederation AS being accessed by an earth station. While the technique both is ad hoc and involves mobility, it is different in applicability from MANET and mobile IP, since its quantum of mobility is the AS, not either subnet or host. This would typically be used in a low-bandwidth applkication where the edge (i.e., non-confederation) AS lose connectivity with one AS in the ring, but transfer connectivity to a differfent confederation-AS, using dynamic capabilities exchange. As operational requirements dictate, the non-confederation AS might switch back to the original upstream AS. Additional security may be required for this application. Discussion followed. John Scudder (): If you expect this change, why wait for dynamic capabilities? Why not configure immediately? Sue: We don't want to drop the associated peers Peter Lothberg: Why not use an IGP? Sue answered that an IGP gives insufficient policy control. John Scudder: Pointed out that you cannot nest confederations, limitiing applicability. Sue reitierated this is neither MANET nor mobile IP. Chandra -- is confederation AS too small a level of granularity? He asked why there could be additional security requirements, and Sue pointed out that TCP neither encrypts nor authenticates, and regular BGP security may be insufficient for some tactical applications. Peter Lothberg: Is the policy for inter-AS links, AS, or AS confederation? WHat is the requirement? Sue replied the policy was for the confederation. Russ White: Suggested avoided the security cookie. He felt it might be too ad hoc, and a general solution would be better. John Scudder: agrees ad hoc may not be desirable -- worried about cloned AS. Parantep (MCI): "neither confirm or deny IGP is aware", agreed to by Sue. Application may involve multiple IGP. Peter Lothberg: Asked Sue to confirm this proposal is to solve a real problem, not just to demonstrate what could be done. Dampening --------- Sue suggested there be WG list discussion of updates.
_______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
- [Idr] MInutes for IDR Susan Hares
- RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR Bhatia, Manav
- RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
- RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
- RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
- RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR Susan Hares