Editor's note: This report has not been edited. Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 15:04:41 +0500 From: Joel Halpern Area Report for the Routing Area from the 30 IETF Meeting, July 25-29, 1994 in Toronto Group Name: Nimrod - The New Internet Routing and Addressing Architecture Isidro Catineyra and Noel Chiappa - Chairs The group covered the following items: 1. Presentation and review of the changes to the Architecture draft 2. Presentation and review of Martha Steenstrup's Functionality ID. 3. Presentation and review of S. Ramanathan's ID on Nimrod's approach to Mobility and Multicast. 4. Discussion on how to approach specifying the database and protocols. Main open issues: We still have not completely converged to where attributes belong. I. Castineyra will be sending a message to the list enumerating the approaches and comparing them. How to organize the database. A suggestion was made to use MIB format. This was not enthusiastically received. I. Castineyra will be sending a message to the list sketching the requirements of the database and its contents. Group Name: ROLC - Routing over Large Clouds Summary Andy Malis - Chair The chair led a discussion of the WG goals and problem statement, based upon the charter and prior WG meetings. There was general consensus on these. Certain additional issues about more closely integrating the switching and routing layers were raised. The group felt that was not the problem to be worked on in this WG. There was a review of the requirements and goals as produced by the Seattle brainstorming. There was consensus in support of those requirements and goals, with minor emmendations. Following this portion of the meeting, Dave Katz led a discussion of his current Next Hop Resolution Protocol draft. He went though the draft and discussed the purpose of the various PDU types, illustrated some protocol scendarios, and answered questions. He received a number of suggestions from the WG for improving both the protocol and its description in his draft. The agreed goal of the working group is to have a new draft well before the next meeting. E-mail discussion should lead to agreement at the meeting to advance the document to Proposed Standard. Group Name: ISIS - IS-IS Working Group Chris Gunner and Doug Montgomery - Chairs Ross Callon outgoing chair Doug presented the documents related to pushing I.IS-IS to Draft Standard. It is suggested that the MIB go to proposed standard, and I.IS-IS ("son-of-RFC1195") go to Draft Standard. The protocol experience and protocol analysis needs to be issued (as informational RFCs). We also need an applicability statement. The status of the IS-IS / IDRP&BGP interaction is unknown. This should be published as an Internet Draft and/or RFC. Some minor changes to I.IS-IS have been added. All changes are interoperable with the previous version. Those which are appropriate will be forwarded to ISO. There have also been some minor changes to the MIB configuration options., as well as clarification for cases where configuration and computation differ. A number of minor clarifications were added based on implementation exerience. (There were a few places where implementors had mis-interpretted the specification, so these were tightened up.) Group Name: BGP - Border Gateway Protocol Working Group Yakov Rekhter - Chair Group Name: IPIDRP - InterDomain Routing Protocol for IP Working Group Sue Hares - Chair These two groups will be merged into a single IDR (Inter Domain Routing) Working Group, with the two existing chairs as co-chairs. For this meeting, they met jointly. Topics discussed included: (a) New WG charter, (b) BGP4 status update, (c) BGP/OSPF Interaction document, (d) AS space growth, (e) IDRP implementation, (f) inter-domain routing for IP6, (g) deprecation of EGP. The WGs would like to convey to the IESG their desire to move EGP to a historical status. Group Name: SDR - Source Domain Routing Working Group Tony Li and Deborah Estrin - Chairs The working group began with a status report of the progress since the previous IETF. Activity has been focused mainly at USC/ISI and Merit on the development of practical route construction mechanisms. USC reported minimal progress since the last IETF, but Sue Hares of Merit gave a presentation on mechanisms for IDRP Rib Query in support of SDRP route construction. These mechanisms provide an ability to get a full Rib dump and ongoing updates t o the Rib, as well as a partial one-time dump of portions of the Rib. Deborah Estrin gave a short presentation on the use of Path Explorers, an alternative route construction mechanism. Estrin also reported on the increasing interest in SDRP-like mechanisms to support routing for reservation oriented traffic (see the minutes of the RSVP WG meeting). The working group then went to a joint session with the IPv6 working group , where SDR for IPv6 was discussed. After some interesting discussion, it was decided that SDR for IPv6 is indeed of interest and that this work should continue in the SDR working group. Group Name: OSPF - Open Shortest Path First Working Group John Moy - Chair Half the meeting was spent discussing the "OSPF over demand circuits" I-D, which proposes enhancements to OSPF enabling efficient operation over dial-up circuits. Fred Baker then presented an MD5 authentication scheme for OSPF, and clarified his Point-to-Multipoint interface for OSPF; it was decided that both of these new functions would be folded into the base OSPF spec. Three small technical changes to OSPF were then discussed, and the Working Group then decided on the disposition of the 12 RFCs and Internet Drafts that fall under its jurisdiction (see minutes for details). The meeting ended by soliciting people to work on the OSPF for IPng spec (Fred Baker and Dennis Ferguson volunteered). Group Name: IDMR - InterDomain Multicast Routing Anthony Ballardie - Chair The meeting focussed primarily on the following issues: - changes to the PIM DM specification -- a new IGMP message type is introduced by PIM for reporting the RP. An IGMP-RP-report is sent in response to IGMP host membership queries. - PIM assert messages, which are sent by PIM routers on multi-access LANs, now carry a metric. The purpose of the metric is to override the possibility of a non-optimal path being chosen. - PIM DM-SM interaction was discussed in some detail. It is a goal of PIM that a router's interfaces should be configurable individually in DM or SM. How particular interfaces are configured will depend upon the operational environment. - PIM scalability was discussed and analysed in detail, and various intuitive conclusions drawn as to how PIM is likely to scale when operating over the wide-area. - Administrative Scoping of IP multicast was explained, the purpose of which is address re-use, and to allow the more effective containment of 'scoped' multicasts. - Finally, a multicast "traceroute" protocol was described in some detail. Group Name: RIPv2 Gary Malkin - Chair After a quick approval of the current documents for advancement in the standards track, the group concentrated on three issues: usage of the Next Hop field, Jeff Honig's "infinity=15" problem and MD5 Authentication. After much discussion and hand-waving, the group decided that the usage of the Next Hop field, as described in the Applicability Statement, is an unusual, but valid, use of the field. It was pointed out that implementors should propably have a switch to control use of the field in the manner described. There was concern expressed about ambiguity in the way routes with Metric 14 and 15 were processed. The group decided that nothing needed to be done about this. A proposal for adding MD5 authentication to Rip-2 was made. This proposal will be document separately from the RIP-2 spec, and advance on its own. The MIB elements needed to support the proposal are already in place. Group Name: IP Mobility Kannan Alagappan and Greg Minshall - Chairs The meeting reviewed the current design and outstanding issues relative to the current internet draft. All of the outstanding issues were resolved. A number of items were raised for further discussion. It is hoped that the group will have a solid proposal and consensus to advance the draft to proposed standard after the next IETF meeting.