[19:46:05] DavidAlanReid joins the room [19:46:23] DavidAlanReid leaves the room [21:23:54] Alex Petrescu joins the room [21:29:35] Seung Yi joins the room [21:37:35] ryuji.wakikawa joins the room [21:37:40] hi alex [21:37:46] hey there [21:37:47] let's do this in AUTOCONF chat [21:37:53] ok, thanks for the note [21:41:16] ryuji.wakikawa leaves the room [21:45:31] ryuji.wakikawa joins the room [21:49:13] ryuji.wakikawa leaves the room [22:03:17] I'm listening to audio of Continental 6 and there seems to be netext talk - is this ok? Or should I use another audio feed? (audio feeds are listed at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/74/) [22:04:00] oh no sorry, wrong... [22:04:50] I think the right audio stream for autoconf jabber in Continental 6 is http://feed.verilan.com:8000/continental_6.m3u [22:04:51] Hi, Alex. I'm also listening in on Continental 6 channel. It's not the right one? [22:04:59] Oh. Got it. [22:05:15] btw, netext is also interestingly heating up. [22:05:23] ryuji.wakikawa joins the room [22:07:23] For the record, interesting DT discussion was archived at http://lists.thomasclausen.net/pipermail/autoconf-dt/ [22:08:21] AUTOCONF WG meeting IETF 26 march 2009, Chairs are Thomas Clausen is TC and Ryuji Wakikawa is RW [22:09:22] shamus joins the room [22:09:42] Agenda and some presentation(s) slides are at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/74/materials.html search 'autoconf' [22:10:53] Slides onoingly modified and circulated during DT discussions are mostly at http://www.emmanuelbaccelli.org/ftp/Autoconf-SF-IETF.pdf and [22:11:05] and Teco's at http://lists.thomasclausen.net/pipermail/autoconf-dt/pptfOSedqlH61.ppt and [22:11:49] and Perkins' http://lists.thomasclausen.net/pipermail/autoconf-dt/pptKwMeAtfpJd.ppt and [22:12:20] and Ulrich's http://lists.thomasclausen.net/pipermail/autoconf-dt/pdfzqTZIxy8wX.pdf [22:12:39] This is surely not definitive slides and Chairs may post something else... warning. [22:12:55] TC starts meeting [22:13:21] I could do, but I'm not physically in the room! [22:13:23] RW will try to update jabber room [22:13:29] ok, alex, that'll help [22:13:59] I need someone to type jabber each time there's a slide change, and title of the slide currently displayed. [22:14:03] nordmark joins the room [22:14:16] ok [22:15:06] WG status Update Slide now [22:17:07] WG CHARTER SLIDES [22:17:25] Where are these slides? (they aren't in the urls I posted above) [22:18:27] But Ulrich name is not listed in Ryuji DT announcement in the autoconf list... [22:18:31] Pascal Thubert joins the room [22:19:16] 'remaining' members? [22:19:53] TC: comments on this? [22:20:05] TC: q? [22:20:12] TC: Carlos BErnardos? (is CB) [22:20:25] RW: first speaker is Ulrihc [22:20:35] Ulrich Herberg is UH [22:20:55] Thomas.Heide.Clausen joins the room [22:20:56] UH presents the slides, I believe these: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/pipermail/autoconf-dt/pdfzqTZIxy8wX.pdf [22:21:25] Ulrich on how we configure as opposed to why [22:22:20] looks as a NAT (same IP address on two different interfaces). [22:22:40] Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/slides/autoconf-1.pdf [22:24:13] CB: central config slide... [22:24:28] CB: why do you treat like, you have a router in a host? But you treat all as a single entity [22:24:38] Carlos B: about ex 1 address collision with 2 devices with a same address? [22:24:38] CB: two interfaces on the same device with same IP address? [22:25:03] Ulrich that's 2entities [22:25:09] CB: different, even on the same laptop, reality laptop, but they are considered as two different entities, like attaching [22:25:15] (that CB was UH) [22:25:18] CB: two... [22:25:20] UH: yes [22:25:32] CB: two interfaces in the same router with the same IP address? [22:25:37] UH: unnumbered interfaces of Cisco [22:25:45] CB: for me it's not clear... [22:25:53] CB: and the temrinology: MANET interface? [22:26:10] UH: we skip to later that, terminology I used ok, but later slides will clarify, slides from ... [22:26:14] Thomas NArten is TN [22:26:21] TN: odd that you say that ... [22:26:25] TN: that....errr.... [22:26:37] TN: that the MANET iface is unnumbered is fine... [22:26:45] TN: but borrows on the non-MANET link, so... [22:27:08] TN: confused '... if the infeterfaces are unnumbered by definition it has no number so what it means it borrows... [22:27:13] UH:... [22:27:16] TN: not Cisco [22:27:24] TN: unnumbered sounds as no address [22:27:35] TC: address is used as src IP address [22:27:37] Teco Boot is TB [22:27:59] TB: the IP unnumbered is a solution for addressing need on some techs, ptp links, IPv4 router reqs... nothing new... [22:28:06] TB: but the new thing is the MANET iface... [22:28:16] TB: well specified for ptp links and MPLS couple of drafts ... [22:28:19] TB: stds track rfcs. [22:28:35] TN: if the intention is iface unnumbered and src is ... I understand that [22:28:41] Erik Nordmark is EN [22:29:04] EN: goes back to BSD... in BSD if unnumbered it has an address, a particular implementation, 20yrs ago it was done [22:29:17] RW:next Charles Perkins presents, is CP [22:29:38] CP presents slides which are? [22:30:23] Mark Townsley joins the room [22:30:28] http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094e8d.shtml [22:30:51] Hang on....the slides from CP are in ppt [22:30:57] Look here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/74/materials.html [22:31:11] Under Autoconf -- or search for Chalie [22:31:18] s/Chalie/Charlie/ [22:32:00] CP slides seem to be at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/slides/autoconf-2.ppt [22:33:10] yes nobody complained but did ethereal show it... [22:35:18] EN: asks if implementations doing different things. [22:35:21] EN: what implementations do? different things in those case? [22:35:47] CP: Ryuji did some work with this, in the context of routing, Internet gateway, we tried both ways, kind of see... there may other implementations, nobody told me [22:36:06] Mark Townsley leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [22:36:06] Mark Townsley joins the room [22:36:32] Ian Chakeres joins the room [22:36:55] TB presents slides at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/slides/autoconf-3.ppt I believe [22:38:14] TC: this Ethernet you have there, with three... that's a classical IP link yes? [22:38:16] TB: yes [22:38:23] TC: multihomed network? or what exaclty? [22:38:44] TC: ignorant may I be, but I'm not aware with networks with two routers sharing same prefix... do we do that in other networks? [22:38:52] TC: not MANET routers, but maybe IPv6 routers? [22:39:05] Joe Macker is JM [22:39:12] JM: you could put towo routers on the link... still MANET [22:39:28] TC: two routers advertises same prefix ok, but advertise same prefix - will that work? [22:39:30] RW: yes [22:39:37] TB: it's in the same car. [22:39:56] TC: same prefix delegated to same router... but how would DHCP-PD would servers delegate this? [22:40:14] EN: historically... minor multiple routers, enterprise routers... but DHCPPD I don't know how this could be. [22:40:21] EN: for the purpose of PD could be one. [22:40:30] TB: how addresses are delegated is second phase. [22:40:36] TB: there are some mechanisms... [22:40:49] TB: in my oppinion nothing special, I can have this at home from two providers... [22:40:54] (Teco don't try this at home :-) [22:41:05] CB: possible with NEMO is this too, right? [22:41:07] RW: no [22:41:12] RW: in NEMO basic support no [22:41:20] (yes Ryuji, you can, I did) [22:41:31] RW: nobody could guarantee at the same time... [22:41:35] CB: potential deployment scenario [22:41:48] RW: the protocol doesnt'support two mobile routers sitting in the same mobile network... [22:41:58] TC: in myc ase, they're fixed together, same vehicle... [22:42:10] RW: this is what you want, how to solve that not in scope [22:42:16] TC: but how to get that... [22:42:31] TB: in privat e address space, manually. but if Internet then we may want to make this dynamic [22:42:36] (and I agree with Teco!) [22:42:42] TC: so for now we do it statically. [22:44:34] (Side-remark: what I wanted to know was if there was, today, something doing that dynamically in non-MANET networks, i.e., getting the same prefix to be 'delegated' to two routers. As that seems to not be the case, I think that this may not be in scope for AUTOCONF, but for the appropriate wg doing prefix delegation in IP networks) [22:45:05] EN: why would you want to use link-locals for v4? In v6 for ospf, but in v4 why bother? [22:45:29] TC: reason is that, one is another address space... address is just used for the routing protocol... you need an address just for the link... [22:45:37] EN: for bootstrapping would you use it? [22:46:07] TC: question is here how to auto-configure... or manually... question is I could use another class block, maybe class E... this is just an idea: can we use same tech we use in IPv6? [22:46:23] EN: depends on implementations... in some cases the support for v4 LL is much morelimited. [22:46:48] EN: in v6 iface id is in v6, whereas in v4 not have it, after thought... local printer... might be more difficult from implementations... principle is same. [22:47:05] TB: host apps won't use this link-local... only the rt protocol would use it... [22:47:11] EN: if address space from class E... [22:47:17] (that was TB) [22:47:23] EN: just ask from IANA [22:47:39] Hiroki joins the room [22:47:58] (for v4: there's no DHCP-PD, there was a draft called subnet allocation, not sure whether it became an RFC) [22:48:42] (v4 LL: great advantage is their uniqueness ensured on the link; and they _are_ used by applications, e,g, ActiveSync and _maybe_ some Apple stuff). [22:49:05] next is Emmanuel Baccelli is EB [22:49:21] EB presents slides from http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/slides/autoconf-4.ppt I believe [22:49:31] TC: there's a guy following audio stream... thanks alex [22:49:33] Thanks a lot! [22:49:36] ;) [22:52:30] Carlos : what is a manet link [22:52:37] CB:what is a MANET link [22:52:38] ? [22:52:42] Emm: medium for manet communication [22:52:50] EB: a medium on which to communicate [22:53:02] JM: for clarifications you need to be unique in routing domain, including heterogenneous links [22:53:13] JM: it's a domain... [22:53:52] TN: most remember thought unique in MANET domain is right def... but not stricly speaking... [22:53:58] TN: we need to work this out I guess.. [22:55:35] which slide is displayed? [22:56:07] Slide with all the mobile devices and concentric rings. [22:56:13] "Requirements: Uniqueness" [22:56:37] Slide "Requirements: IP On-Link Model" [22:56:52] Joe: offlink addresses considered as well? [22:56:54] Macker: did the design team talk about off-link addresses, or only on-link addresses. [22:56:57] JM: issue: did the DT talk about off-link addresses? [22:57:14] JM: in rt community we have an id from the routing app layer, use a Router ID - is that part of scope? [22:57:24] JM: or is it just assigning addressses to ifaces? [22:57:40] EB: what we said, practical approach is use d addresses as ids... but in doc we clear out htis we need... [22:57:54] EB: find a way directionally, we don't want to avoid run OSPF run on this stuf [22:58:06] TB: is it important to work on router ids? largersopecope? [22:58:10] TB: we miss something here [22:58:35] JM: quick sense: yo work on the right thing first, I do believe router id is important, may depend on protocol - key is not to preclude [22:58:36] Mark Townsley leaves the room [22:58:59] EB: we talk upto to now how to identify stuff, you can use what you want... if yo dont need addresses. then what you want is to be it unique. [22:59:45] (so make reachable range correspond to a subnet) [23:00:12] EB: qs? [23:00:18] EB: these are simpel things [23:00:27] RW: this is the presentation from DT [23:00:43] RW: we don't have an I-D yet... but I expect a doc right after this doc, 1 month, 2 weeks... [23:00:51] RW: goal is finish WG LC before next meeting [23:01:00] RW: send a doc to IESG in Sept (Charter says) [23:01:04] RW: not much time... [23:01:23] RW: three years on same thing. We need now your input. Qs you may have please go to mic(rophone). [23:01:41] JM: there was v4 in the Charter today, but in the past v6 was. Charter updated was? [23:01:45] JM: or non important. [23:01:52] JM: still Charter kind of says v6 [23:02:16] TC: discussion with ADs on this particular matter, of oppinion we were, addressing model same reflexions would apply to both v4 and v6. [23:02:36] TC: not rproptocol assign addressesare we chartered to do now, so maybe later. [23:02:48] EB: the new charter on website wasn't updated on website... [23:03:05] TC: charter was posted on the mailing list, Secretariat wasn't yet updating it. [23:03:11] RW: discuss this addressing model... [23:03:18] Pascal Thubert leaves the room [23:03:29] TC: bluesheets are going to be used a=everybody in the room is going to be used to make you review the doc. [23:03:37] ryuji.wakikawa leaves the room [23:03:50] (seems to be adjourned). [23:03:50] Seung Yi leaves the room [23:03:53] Thomas.Heide.Clausen leaves the room [23:04:00] Ian Chakeres leaves the room [23:04:07] funny [23:04:31] Hiroki leaves the room [23:05:04] Hiroki joins the room [23:05:13] Hiroki leaves the room [23:05:36] Alex Petrescu leaves the room [23:07:28] nordmark leaves the room [23:09:25] shamus leaves the room