Minutes for IETF-66 Routing Area Open Meeting

["Bruno Rijsman" <[e-mail]>]

IETF-66 Routing Area Open Meeting
=================================

http://rtg.ietf.org 

Administriva and Area Status
----------------------------
 
Geoff Huston and Bruno Rijsman agreed to take the minutes of the routing area open meeting. 
 
Bill Fenner stepped down as RTGWG chair; John Scudder will take on the role of co-chair 
of this working group. 
 
There is the intent to revive the routing area directorate to perform timely reviews of 
routing area documents. It is anticipated that the directorate members will be a resource 
for WG chairs to undertake early review of routing drafts prior to the final steps of 
IESG submission. The AD review will also use the routing area directorate for comments as 
part of the AD review process. The ADs intend to streamline the document review process 
to reduce the queue size and resulting delay.
 
Routing Area Working Group Reports
----------------------------------
 
BFD - Not meeting this IETF. Will last call the complete document set. Upcoming draft on 
BFD for multicast. The directorate should be involved in review at this stage 

CCAMP - New co-chair Deborah Brungard succeeds Kireeti Kompella. There is steady progress 
on drafts. Current focus is on IGPs, TE capabilities, automesh, ASON routing, and MIBs. 
The GELS BOF relating to GMPLS control of ethernet environments will be folded into 
CCAMP, and GMPLS control protocols will be used. In this proposed direction CCAMP will 
not be involved in the definition of the dataplane (this will be left to other standards 
bodies such as the IEEE), which is addressing one of the more contentious issues that 
surfaced in the GELS BOF. 
 
FORCES - WG chairs not present to report to the area WG.
 
IDR - There is progress in terms of moving documents through the IESG. A number of RFCs 
have been published after IETF 65 and a number of additional documents are to be passed 
to the IESG in the coming weeks. There are various efforts to add things to BGP outside 
of the routing area. The softwire WG was called out as one particular example but there 
are others as well. In the particular example of the softwire WG it was agreed to closely 
coordinate the work with all relevant working groups (IDR, L3VPN, and L2VPN) including 
cross-posting of the documents on the relevant mailing lists. The meta-question is how to 
avoid duplication of effort, having multiple solutions to the same problem, and re-
inventing the wheel when one WG is working on extension to protocols in another WG. Yakov 
suggested that this is a management issue. Some further discussion with the ADs was 
proposed. Other areas and other WGs do work on extensions to routing protocols, with the 
risk of inadequate management of the outcomes to ensure coherence and consistency of the 
extensions. This is asserted to be a matter for AD attention and work management. Some 
coordination effort across WGs should be undertaken as early as possible when work on 
routing protocols is taken up in other working groups ("early cross-area review" is the 
procedure being invoked here).

ISIS - Some further work items (multi-topology ISIS and extending the LSP space) and 
rechartering are underway. Implementation report requirements was noted as an area for 
discussion. 
 
L1VPN - Progressing well. Framework draft close to completion and use specification 
underway. Some drafts affect BGP or OSPF; there has been some cross-WG and cross-area 
review. 
 
MANET - The 3 core documents have been updated. The WG authors are working on a common 
messaging format and the corresponding document has been updated. Work on a common 
neighborhood discovery work is underway. There are at present pro-active and reactive 
approaches and some effort to pull these together. The chairs of autoconf and MANET are 
working on a common architecture document and will publish this post-IETF. This document 
would benefit from early cross-area review. 
 
MPLS - A lengthy agenda at this IETF. The highlights are point-to-multipoint TE LPSs and 
a report of the meeting with ITU-T Q12-SG15 on GMPLS. 
 
OSPF - All the OSPF WG documents have been completed at this stage (MIB on 
v2 and security on v3). There is also the process of re-charting with MTR 
and OSPF-MANET are under consideration. Some active discussion on flooding 
optimization. Some OSPF WG review of the CCAMP documents was called for. A respin of v3 
close to last call; the hope was expressed that v3 will have fewer respins than v2. 
 
PCE - 3 documents in the RFC Editor queue. The base protocol space is now stable, and a 
call for review was made. There have been some proposals for further work, and the chair 
would like to hold off on further spec requirements until there has been some experience 
with the base specification. There was consideration of an experimental track on 
manageability of the PCE specifications. Policy work is outstanding as is consideration 
of the complete requirement set. It was remarked that there might be an implementation of 
the base protocol. 
 
RPSEC - Finishing up with work on generic threats; is back in the RFC editor 
queue. OSPF vulnerabilities and BGP attack tree documents are being 
revised and appear to be close to completion. BGP security requirements is 
also considered to be ready for last call. Without further new items (e.g. additional 
routing protocols in need of a security analysis) the WG will have completed its current 
charter.
 
RAWG - Not meeting this IETF. Due to some recent new proposals there is now an open 
question about loop free / microloop detection which needs to be resolved prior to last 
call. Advanced work can progress after the basic work has been finished. 
 
SIDR - There are two areas which are being discussed. One is work on certificate profiles 
and repositories. The other is work to address deficiencies in TCP MD5: several drafts to 
allow key rollover and stronger authentication were discussed. A proper home WG for the 
TCP MD5 work needs to be found. The next work item for SIDR is BGP architecture: allow 
certificates to be signaled.
 
VRRP - Not meeting at this IETF. VRRP for v6 is being reviewed by the IESG; some feedback 
from SEND has been requested with respect to the security section. The unified MIB is 
under MIB doctor review. The subsecond timer work is under WG review. 
 
1264 obsolete discussion 
------------------------
 
What should the requirement be for routing area documents? There was strong consensus to 
have "good" requirements. In the process of defining "good" it became clear that there is 
a general consensus that there is really no need to have special requirements for routing 
which are different from the rest of the IETF. At this stage it is proposed that it is a 
WG matter to determine requirements relating to implementation reports, and due attention 
should be given to quality of WG documents in this process. This would make RFC 1264 
historic (not "obsolete"). 
 
IP routing in the GIG
--------------------- 

Dow Street gave an extensive presentation on the USDoD "Global Information Grid" 
initiative.

Initially, the engineering activity is mostly within the department of defense, but the 
expectation is that the scope will be extended to other military partners and government 
networks.

This network is expected to push the limits of what current protocols can achieve in 
multiple dimensions, including routing, QoS and security. DoD is looking at this from a 
long term perspective with a goal of 100,000 routers in 12 years.

There are at least two fundamental differences that distinguish GIG from the current 
Internet.

One fundamental difference is the proposed pervasive node and network mobility: routers 
are on vehicles. This will have profound implications for inter-domain routing. The 
presentation listed many underlying assumptions in BGP which no longer hold in such an 
environment. Some examples include the fact that routers frequently move from one AS to 
another AS, the assumption that it possible to make a distinction between border routers 
and interior routers, the idea that it makes sense to define policies at the AS level, 
etc.

Another fundamental difference which was discussed was the "routing commons", i.e. the 
cooperation model between the network domains. The GIG will be "mission-oriented": there 
will be much more emphasis on a single overriding authority which can allocate scarce 
resources to achieve a common goal. This was contrasted with the Internet which was 
suggested to use an "economic" model. Russ White remarked that there is probably more 
cooperation in the Internet than most people think.

The GIG will be a long term project. The short term goal is to extend existing protocols 
including BGP. In the long term more fundamental architectural changes may be required 
such as a combination of IDR and MANET. The IETF was invited to contribute; this network 
will get built and will use commercially available products. 
 
IAB Workshop 
------------
 
Dave Meyer reported on the proposed IAB workshop on routing. Mid-October is the likely 
date. Current workshop activity appears to be the definition of a routing problem 
statement and a requirement list. This is understood to be a by-invitation workshop. Ross 
Callon commented that it would be valuable for a broader discussion and call for input on 
the routing-discuss mailer on the identification of the problems that need to be solved
wrt routing and addressing. 
 
The routing-discuss mailing list is [e-mail] 
List-Subscribe: 
  <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, 
  <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe> 
 
 
Yakov noted that the IAB had held a routing workshop some years back, and inquired about 
the differences between the previous IAB exercise and this one. Some hope was expressed 
that this would produce a productive outcome. 
 
Open Mike 
---------
 
No comments. 

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion