[11:55:16] Alex Petrescu joins the room [11:56:38] slides are at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/75/materials.html and then search for 'autoconf' in that page. [11:57:47] agenda is at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/autoconf/agenda?item=agenda75.html [11:58:39] Audio URL is http://feed.verilan.com/ietf/stream05.m3u [13:13:19] Wes Beebee joins the room [13:20:03] jariarkko joins the room [13:20:38] Dave Thaler joins the room [13:21:22] Thomas Heide Clausen joins the room [13:23:52] Ulrich will be Jabber-scribing, but until he's gotten his laptop in gear I'll be filling in. [13:24:07] badamson joins the room [13:24:25] Ryuji: agenda presentation, status update: [13:24:25] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/autoconf-0.pdf [13:24:34] (status update slide) [13:24:49] Agenda "too optimistic" - design-team -00 document published in July [13:25:08] Hope to move quickly with this document and catch up with milestones. [13:25:22] We're supposed to finish work on the addressing model document in September. [13:25:30] DT published document, individual submission [13:25:32] rdroms@jabber.org joins the room [13:25:42] Todays discussion on the DT document, possibly for wg adoption. [13:25:46] Comments, questions? [13:25:59] (Move to DT presentation - Baccelli) [13:26:08] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/autoconf-1.pdf [13:26:24] -00 and -01 submitted just before this IETF, as individual documents. [13:26:31] narten joins the room [13:26:42] Slide: IP subnet configuration [13:27:25] [I'll not transcribe the whole speech, look at slides and follow audio....] [13:27:40] Ulrich Herberg joins the room [13:27:51] IP subnet (the one with red text) [13:27:51] Dave Thaler leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [13:27:55] Dave Thaler joins the room [13:27:56] Slide: IP address config [13:28:40] Slide: IP address config (the one with red text) [13:28:58] Slide: "Some Open Topics" [13:29:36] Issue 1:Document doesn't for now talk about "additional addresses" [13:29:46] Dave Thaler: comment on addresses /128 and /32 [13:31:30] There is no reason that I know of why autoconf would not use EUI-64 based Interface Identifiers. [13:31:40] momose joins the room [13:32:56] yuichi igarashi joins the room [13:33:53] Ralph Droms at the mike.... [13:36:01] Fred Templin from Boeing. [13:37:12] What Fred is describing is what I thought the autoconf model is... for "normal" addresses, they are either on a virtual interface, or an a separate real interface, like an ethernet. Addresses on the MANET interface are only for making MANET work. [13:38:07] (taking over the scribe) [13:38:12] (thanks) [13:39:13] Mark Townsley at the mike [13:40:27] Fred Templin at mike [13:40:38] cjbernardos joins the room [13:40:46] Mark T. at mike [13:41:35] Fred Templin at mike [13:41:49] Mark T. at mike [13:41:49] Alex Petrescu leaves the room [13:42:16] Fred Templin at mike [13:42:47] Teco Boot at mike [13:42:50] Alex Petrescu joins the room [13:43:14] So long as this WG refuses to chose a baseline, it will get no where. Leaving all possibilities open and chosing none is what has led to the current multi-year circling around the issues without getting anywhere... [13:43:41] Fred Templin at Mike [13:43:51] chosing a baseline doesn't mean others aren't allowed.... [13:44:05] Mark is right. We need to describe ONE way to autoconfigure. Think of it as an example, or one recommended model. We are not outlawing other approaches, or things on top of the autoconfiguration model. But we can't design a model that supports all possible ways to do the autoconfiguration. [13:44:06] Thomas Clausen at mike [13:47:11] Henning Rogge at mike [13:47:52] Alex Petrescu leaves the room [13:48:38] problem with link-local addresses is, I think, that they are *assumed* to be on link. [13:49:20] what about ULA? or a reserved centrally-assigned ULA prefix that can be uniformly not marked as "on link" [13:50:05] Alex Petrescu joins the room [13:51:08] Alex Petrescu leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [13:51:21] Erik Nordmark at mike [13:51:34] haa joins the room [13:54:08] haa leaves the room [13:54:21] answer from Emmanuel Baccelli [13:54:47] ralph: there is more to this. I think (wonder?) if folk are making an assumption that if they have a link-local prefix in their routing table, than normal packet sending (involving LL addresses) just works. By saying use a /128 for "on-link", they prevent LL addresses that are not actually neighboers (because they are MANET addresses) from being routing. Which is good. But this is too simplistic. You can't just put a LL prefix in your routing table and make things work. If you have multiple interfaces, you can't tell from just looking at a LL address which interface to send the packet out on. [13:55:14] (queue-depth: Ralph/Mark/Fred/Teco) [13:55:14] Alex Petrescu joins the room [13:55:16] Ralph Droms at mike [13:56:22] Mark Townsley at mike [13:58:44] Fred Templin at mike [13:59:17] questions from Thomas Clausen [14:00:58] Dave Thaler at mike [14:02:01] comment from Emmanuel Baccelli [14:02:33] Emmanuel Baccelli continues [14:03:07] asks for comments about unique address scope [14:03:24] Mark Townsley at mike [14:04:12] answer from Emmanuel Baccelli [14:05:03] Thomas Clausen at mike [14:05:18] no, Mark Townsley jumped in [14:05:45] I'm in the focus-on-globals camp. (If you are taking hand counts...) [14:05:57] Thomas Clausen at mike [14:08:16] Christopher Dearlove at mike [14:09:06] badamson leaves the room [14:09:06] Dave Thaler at mike [14:09:57] badamson joins the room [14:10:33] rdroms@jabber.org leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [14:10:43] comment from Thomas Clausen [14:11:03] Fred Templin at mike [14:11:34] answer from Thomas CLausen [14:12:42] Mark Townsley at mike [14:13:46] Teco Boot at mike [14:15:05] Mark Townsley at mike [14:15:09] again Teco [14:15:38] Erik Nordmark at mike [14:18:10] comments from Thomas Clausen [14:19:55] Teco Boot at mike [14:21:18] Mark Townsley at mike [14:22:08] Erik Nordmark [14:22:56] Fred Templin [14:23:52] Ralph Droms joins the room [14:24:01] Mark Townsley [14:24:54] Erik Nordmark [14:25:27] Fred Templin [14:25:47] answer from Emmanuel Baccelli [14:26:07] Erik Nordmark [14:26:58] EB: further comments? [14:27:22] Mark Townsley at mike [14:27:28] Teco Boot at mike [14:27:51] I agree with Teco Boot [14:29:02] Krishnan Suresh at mike [14:29:11] Teco Boot [14:29:13] Gee, are we arguing again about what a LL address is? Deja vu 20 times over? [14:29:50] Krishnan Suresh at mike [14:30:27] Teco Boot at mike [14:30:59] comments from Thomas Clausen [14:31:29] I'm not on the audio. I thought we concluded that LL address is incompatible with no prefix-based direct packet delivery? [14:32:10] I agree with that. I am not sure DT agrees that. [14:32:24] Fred Templin [14:32:31] RW says: we should ask the WG whether the LLs are useful? [14:32:44] FT: asks for a use-case analysis [14:33:03] FT: automobiles, enterprises - very different cases. [14:33:19] FT: examples: desk, CN, ping, link local., in _)some_ use case. [14:34:07] Ryuji proposes to ask the WG which direction to go [14:34:35] TC: first question: recommending LL vs ULA/global [14:34:50] which is most appropriate [14:35:08] MT: thought that LL would not even exist [14:35:30] MT: then EN said we should add more explanatory text [14:35:59] TC: DT observed that there are RFCs that say that we must have LL [14:36:50] MT: proposal: 1) LL can exist, text crafted by Erik [14:37:18] I hum favor [14:37:20] I'm in favor. (No need to mention this on the mike, just count me in) [14:37:49] TB on mike [14:37:59] TB: do we need LL for RAs [14:38:20] HenningRogge: we need to determine a mesh-wide stable address [14:38:42] HR: routing protocols need domain wide or even global unique address [14:39:30] HR: routing protocols could specify which addresses to use / how unique they are [14:39:59] TC: do you vote for or against the proposal [14:40:01] ? [14:40:56] Well it does [14:40:56] HR: there are routing protocols that need link-local addresses [14:40:59] EB: no [14:41:00] Come on!!! [14:41:05] OSPF must use link locals [14:41:19] TC: the important thing is not OSPF but MANET [14:41:38] TC: let's not forbid LL [14:41:52] (that was TB, not TC, was it not?) [14:41:54] RW: in the doc we say, LL can exist (with some warning) [14:42:09] The /128 condition _forbids_ the link-locals. [14:42:20] FT: we are not forbidding anything [14:42:42] The /128 recommendation _forbids_ link-local addresses. [14:42:44] I thought we were dropping that /128 condition as conflicting with existing RFCs. [14:42:46] FT: comes down to use cases what addresses to use [14:42:58] This should be made very clear. [14:43:56] CD: we are not saying how to configure addresses [14:44:25] TC: continue on mailing list [14:44:30] IMO, /128 does not conflict with existing specs. We are blurring and confusing various issues. [14:45:01] you can have a /128 for on-link prefixes and still have a 64-bit Interface IDs. [14:45:05] (yes) [14:45:05] /128 on an interface is forbidding link-locals. /128 in a routing table is somethind different. [14:45:12] RW: can we adopt this doc as WG document? [14:45:16] "/128" is a red herring. The result you are looking for can be stated in another way. [14:45:43] TC: ask DT to make a new revision [14:45:57] RW: other comments" [14:45:59] HUM inconclusive on adopting the document. [14:46:08] Hence, new rev, ask on the list [14:46:16] yuichi igarashi leaves the room [14:46:19] blue sheets! [14:46:41] Wes Beebee leaves the room [14:46:43] TC: if you have opinions / want to participate, ask DT [14:46:55] cjbernardos leaves the room [14:47:02] momose leaves the room [14:47:11] meeting closed [14:47:34] Ralph Droms leaves the room [14:47:37] narten leaves the room [14:48:13] badamson leaves the room [14:48:28] jariarkko leaves the room [14:48:32] Alex Petrescu leaves the room [14:50:46] Ulrich Herberg leaves the room [14:55:50] Thomas Heide Clausen leaves the room [15:11:33] badamson joins the room [15:11:56] badamson40775 joins the room [15:11:56] badamson40775 leaves the room [15:11:56] badamson73241 joins the room [15:11:57] badamson73241 leaves the room [15:11:57] badamson81174 joins the room [15:12:25] badamson81174 leaves the room [15:12:46] badamson leaves the room [15:25:54] Dave Thaler leaves the room [16:23:55] Alex.Petrescu joins the room [16:48:10] Alex.Petrescu leaves the room [17:00:11] badamson joins the room [17:15:06] badamson leaves the room [17:15:26] badamson joins the room [17:15:32] badamson leaves the room