[09:40:38] Tomasz Mrugalski joins the room [09:45:18] Tomasz Mrugalski has set the subject to: MIF IETF 78 [11:01:39] behcet.sarikaya joins the room [11:02:00] I volunteered to do Jabber [11:02:08] Feel free to help [11:02:12] florin coras joins the room [11:02:45] Scott Brim joins the room [11:03:26] arifumi joins the room [11:03:26] What I'm going to do is take meeting notes and also cut/paste chunks into this jabber conf [11:03:49] Simon Perreault joins the room [11:03:53] tinnami joins the room [11:04:10] internetplumber joins the room [11:04:32] Margaret is doing agenda bashing [11:04:38] Zhen Tsao joins the room [11:04:51] tsavo_work@jabber.org/Meebo joins the room [11:05:00] dthaler joins the room [11:05:32] We're close to finishing our three chartered work items. Mainly we did analysis. We're going to talk about solutions (not in our charter now) and see about interest and whether to charter work in this wg or another wg. [11:06:45] Hui doing the document status [11:06:49] everyone must be saving their bashing for later [11:07:17] Current practices draft - received many comments, now updated and in last call, done most of the work. OK to submit? No issues. [11:07:45] Current practice analysis draft [11:08:06] Julien, [11:08:38] Still expanding list of problems [11:08:52] Hardly anyone has read it [11:09:50] g.e.montenegro joins the room [11:10:51] He doesn't know what's missing. People read it and be sure nothing is missing before doing second section [11:11:42] kawashimam joins the room [11:11:55] Is this useful? Can't ask since so few have read it. [11:12:33] Maybe the WG doesn't think this work is useful and just want to recharter and work on solutions. But we can't work on solutions until we finish the analysis that motivates them. [11:12:47] The point is to determine where the gaps are. [11:13:29] If you're proposing a solution and the analysis doc doesn't list a problem you're solving, then why should your solution be chartered? [11:13:52] Rechartering proposals ... [11:14:29] Hui starts rechartering discussion [11:14:31] fujiwara joins the room [11:14:49] Andrew joins the room [11:15:02] tomohikokohno joins the room [11:15:03] Teemu on Split DNS [11:15:08] draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection-03 [11:17:10] Varun Singh joins the room [11:17:56] Varun Singh leaves the room [11:19:07] gaetan1972 joins the room [11:19:08] see slides, so far nothing extra [11:20:03] bernie joins the room [11:20:05] jinmei joins the room [11:20:42] Dave Thaler: are there actually two separate cases/scenarios here or are we only interested in one? What should be in charter? Is the scenario that we are interested in one where the operator wnats to communicate this stuff to hosts, and/or are we interested in one where host wants to do something more intelligent regardless of whether network operators change anything? [11:21:09] Teero interested in both. Need host only at least. [11:21:46] Need host only at least. Should it be a separate doc? It started as host only and evolved to include network. [11:22:15] Do we want to include v4 or forget it? [11:23:17] Stuart Cheshire: is there a reason you list the IPv6 prefix separately instead of including it in a list of suffixes? [11:23:45] The prefix is just used to generate a domain name, one of which is ipv6.arpa but it's just another domain. [11:25:33] Erik Nordmark: if represent them as domain names instead of prefixes that would help. [11:25:36] (missed some) [11:26:09] Erik said multiple prefixes needed so why not use one domain name? [11:28:16] Jark Arkko: Lots of talk about details is premature. Do people need this feature? He thinks yes. But how does it work as a concept? Interaction with DNS. What if two different places provide info about same name. A: DNSOP says it's okay to work on this, they'll review. Policy conflict resolution is a more general problem than DNS. [11:28:53] dan wing says that conflict resolution needs to be figured out [11:30:16] ee04081 joins the room [11:30:29] dan wing: there's not a lot of space to put dns domain names in dhcpv6. dhcp might not be the right place. put it in dns itself. [11:30:53] back to you scott [11:30:57] :-) [11:31:03] Dan Wing: this is going to get huge, e.g. Cisco has many domain names and we also access our suppliers through split DNS. Suggest ask DNS what zones it wants to get queries about (but DNS can't do that now). [11:31:25] Personally I think it's true, this isn't a universal solution but it's not bad for smaller scale situations [11:31:31] Cisco has a special situation [11:32:00] What did Ted say about nxdomain? [11:32:28] that some servers hijack it [11:32:33] and always return an answer [11:33:10] Mark Andrews: have to differentiate external and internal address versions, need to know what kind of address you want, and sometimes you want both. [11:34:13] Someone: why are we having this discussion? This should be about rechartering. [11:34:50] Yes, recharter the problem, not the solution. [11:36:26] Dave Thaler: proposes this is a way for a network to communicate information to hosts. What about what host can do with existing solutions? [11:37:02] jpc@jabber joins the room [11:38:12] satoru.matsushima joins the room [11:38:48] Separating it into two problems: what a host can do with current information, and what a host (or proxy) can do with new information — what information would be useful and how to communicate it. [11:39:41] Ted Lemon: Not so much that you're on a network that doesn't tell you everything you need, but that what you hear is NOT directives you're going to follow. [11:41:32] Erik Nordmark: good to write down what reasonable heuristics you can use if you're getting insufficient information. [11:42:58] Erik again: draft about multihoming without NAT points at MIF. It's not just about multiple interfaces, it's about multiple routers on the same interface. Do we want to expand this stuff? MRW: it's in the MIF charter as a case, there are several parts of that problem but some of them are exactly the same as if there was one network separating you from those two routers, and some if you are on the same network, but certainly two Admin domains ... lost it. [11:43:04] Read the current practices draft [11:43:57] Thomas Narten: be careful about the first step, at least in architectural terms what do we want the host behavior to be, then once we know that we know what information we want the host to get. [11:44:57] Ted: if we solve the multiple interface problem it's okay if we don't solve multiple DHCP servers on the same wire (I think) [11:45:17] btw what I'm doing is taking notes and pasting here. If you have fixes for the notes please say so [11:45:54] MRW: restrict to situation where you have names of multiple DNS servers, some of which may have different answers to questions. Do we need a mechanism to deal with that? [11:47:37] Me: separate the questions. Ted Lemon: no it's not ops versus protocol, we have to characterize the problem so we can see which parts are ops and which are protocol development. [11:48:16] He wants to know what the problem is. But we have a problem statement already. [11:48:28] Dan Wing joins the room [11:48:54] I have fear if DNS configuration is taking us this long to converge. [11:49:12] Hey, this is MIF. Relatively we're making excellent progress. [11:49:20] \ [11:49:29] :( [11:49:54] badMIFattitude [11:50:29] OK, make a generic statement of the problem and include all questions in it. [11:50:53] Ted Lemon: the problem statement specifically refers to the private namespace problem. [11:51:48] Someone: the distinction between the service and the namespace is crucial. Need to serve multiple namespaces. [11:51:50] Huh? [11:52:06] (Someone == Peter Koch, DENIC) [11:52:15] thanks, too much going on [11:52:48] scott, we're all relying on you to explain this discussion to us [11:53:06] It's DNS all the way down [11:53:11] :D [11:53:25] if this is progress... http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/mif.txt and we are on 5.1. [11:53:34] Knowing you've got a valid DNS answer is hard, let's go shopping. [11:53:43] exactly! [11:54:19] split zone DNS is the RFC1918 of the naming world [11:54:36] say it at the mic! [11:54:37] Jari: likes the namespace version of the problem. We don't have a problem if they all have the same namespace. Remi: point is these servers DNS give different answers. [11:54:50] (joking, dont clog it any more) [11:55:02] Please, let's move on, we know we want to solve the problem, we just argue about how to phrase the description. [11:55:36] rdroms joins the room [11:55:41] Gaetan: this misses potential protocol extensions. MRW: leaving out solution specifics. [11:56:10] Stuart Cheshire: would take "private" out of the description, the point is that different servers give different answers. [11:57:02] Andrew Sullivan: wordsmithing around the question isn't so important. People are objecting is because the DNS does that even in its regular operation due to different cache states. [11:57:53] Ted Lemon: the only reason he's being sticky about it is that the problem statement is incomplete. Don't presuppose the solution. [11:58:52] The question: This is the problem where a host receives multiple sets of DNS server configuration information and has to choose which one to use [11:59:13] overwhelming "yes" vote [11:59:46] Yes belongs in IETF. Yes belongs in MIF except dissenter ... [12:00:00] jpc@jabber leaves the room [12:00:34] Yes belongs in MIF but one dissenter: even if host only has one interface still have problem. MRW: MIF includes the case of one interface and two admin domains. [12:00:59] do we need absolute consensus and convince the lone dissenter? [12:01:09] Simon, I hope not. [12:01:16] Stuart Cheshire: does this WG have the expertise to work on this problem? Yes. Not saying we would restrict solution to just MIF. [12:01:27] No, that's why we call it "rough" consensus but some groups have time to be kind [12:01:49] More than 10 willing to work on it. [12:01:54] (we have time here?) [12:02:12] inclusive leadership [12:02:25] David Myles, Broadband Forum Liaison [12:02:35] jinmei leaves the room [12:02:38] see slides as always [12:03:53] i feel bad for the presenter of 5.8 [12:06:08] what do you mean of 5.8? [12:06:15] Ronald van der Pol joins the room [12:06:20] item 5.8 on the agenda [12:06:31] Varun Singh joins the room [12:06:37] dhcpv4 work? [12:06:46] Wojciech Dec (aka Woj), Discussion of DHCPv6 Routing Configuration [12:08:25] Multihomed host, DHCP client. Connected to two routers A and B to two separate networks. Desire to use B as default gw. A for "special" services. Need more specific routes. [12:10:35] tinnami leaves the room [12:11:20] ICMP does not differentiate, but it's normal for DHCP server to give different answers to different hosts. [12:11:49] We call things "hosts" if they don't host. We call traffic "best effort" if it's not. Hmm. [12:12:02] We've always been at war with Oceania [12:13:20] (I missed Teemo's comment) [12:14:17] Teemo asks about scaling problem of having lots of prefixes. [12:14:49] bernie leaves the room [12:14:55] Teemo asks about scaling problem of having lots of prefixes. Woj: use BGP instead in that case. T: if you VPN to your corporation, how can you use BGP? W: use IGP. Today this comes down to just 4-5 routes. [12:15:39] Gaetan: It's important to work on delivering this type of info to the host, concern about size, and the mechanism is what we're looking for. [12:17:51] Ralph Droms, no hat: the problem you're addressing is a routing problem, and there are other aspects to residential gateway routing. He ruled out today's IGPs because they don't scale right. Ralph agrees. We have a particular topology in residential GW situation, hundred thousand residential GWs one hop away from a single aggregating router. But just because we rule out today's IGPs doesn't mean we shouldn't explore tweaking today's IGPs to solve the problem with a routing protocol. It's a routing problem in both directions due to delegated prefixes having to get to the SP core network somehow, and not just snooping DHCP traffic as it goes by. Back up a little bit, look at this as a bidirectional routing problem. [12:18:36] bernie joins the room [12:20:12] Try to phrase the chartering question. "This" is the problem where a node has more than one next hop available through one or more interfaces, and needs to decide what next next hop to use to forward the packet. [12:20:53] tinnami joins the room [12:22:23] Try to phrase the chartering question. "This" is the problem where a node has more than one next hop, one or more interfaces, and needs to decide what next next hop to use to forward the packet. [12:22:42] the info the hosts uses to decide is a local matter [12:25:47] pierrick.seite joins the room [12:25:57] Simon Perreault leaves the room [12:27:03] simon.perreault joins the room [12:27:19] RFC4191 does not allow to differentiate configuration between nodes. [12:27:23] Tony Hain: problem is conflict between multiple administrations. Won't run an IGP across two ISPs. [12:27:30] Discussed solutions allows that. [12:27:35] Tomasz: are you in the room? dare to speak up? [12:28:10] Jari text: next hop selection for situations where existing RA and routing protocol solutions are inadequate. [12:28:21] Jari text: next hop selection for situations where existing RA and routing protocol solutions are viewed as inadequate. [12:29:36] Jari text: next hop selection for situations where existing RA and routing protocol solutions are deemed inadequate. [12:29:38] [12:30:25] What about multiple source addresses? That's the next presentation. [12:30:51] Gaetan: should we specify the scope e.g. host versus router? No. It's a "node". [12:31:47] Remy: take out "deemed". No. [12:32:15] Yes. [12:32:31] Belongs in MIF. [12:32:59] I'm willing to work on this. [12:33:47] Does it belong in IETF? Yes. Does it belong in MIF? Most yes, but Jari no. Yes some willing to work. Jari: has to do with characteristics of solution -- DHCP is good but static, simple, not good for dynamic changes. Should also work on routing-based. [12:34:05] DHCPv6 IS dynamic, not static. There are reconfigure, renew and confirm mechanisms! [12:34:59] thank you [12:35:28] swb: that's easy, the charter says figure out which solutions are appropriate and then work with other WGs as appropriate. [12:35:33] I missed Suresh [12:37:27] Suresh: scope the work, don't solve all the problems in the Internet. Woj: yes there are more complex solutions, keep to simple "routing" scenarios. Suresh: things are implicit in the draft and should be explicit. Woj: he was told to simplify the draft. (??) [12:40:09] MIF API Extension - Yuri Ismailov [12:40:32] tsavo_work@jabber.org/Meebo leaves the room [12:40:35] see slides [12:41:00] (oh look, someone was in a jabber conference room with Meebo … I want to know how to do that) [12:44:13] Want to have a problem statement. Choice of interface, the right DNS server, sending packet out on correct interface. [12:44:20] (and also setting correct source address) [12:46:33] rdroms leaves the room [12:47:45] Lars Eggert: a few times in presentation you assumed that you would pick one best interface and expose it. A: No multipath is okay. [12:48:56] I missed that comment [12:50:47] Yes, it's covered in the problem statement already, and we can use that text. [12:51:40] issue with API not covered in section 5 of PS [12:52:16] tinnami leaves the room [12:52:57] gaetan1972 leaves the room [12:54:34] Varun Singh leaves the room [12:54:49] Gaetan: make the APIs "under a coordinated framework" [12:55:11] gaetan1972 joins the room [12:57:21] APIs to expose multiple interface functionality, e.g. [12:57:33] try that [12:57:36] g.e.montenegro leaves the room [12:59:04] Dave thinks IETF does not do APIs [12:59:27] IETF should do abstract APIs [13:00:49] internetplumber leaves the room [13:01:36] Doing a "abstract" (semantic) API -- consensus. Split on whether to do a concrete API. [13:01:56] behcet.sarikaya leaves the room [13:02:04] bernie leaves the room [13:02:10] simon.perreault leaves the room [13:02:11] do in WG? yes [13:02:15] work on it? 6 or so [13:02:17] satoru.matsushima leaves the room [13:02:18] Dan Wing leaves the room [13:02:19] arifumi leaves the room [13:02:19] bye [13:02:20] Scott Brim leaves the room [13:02:24] kawashimam leaves the room [13:03:05] ee04081 leaves the room [13:03:34] Andrew leaves the room [13:03:57] florin coras leaves the room [13:06:19] Zhen Tsao leaves the room [13:08:32] Tomasz Mrugalski leaves the room [13:11:02] pierrick.seite leaves the room [13:12:06] tomohikokohno leaves the room [13:12:25] Varun Singh joins the room [13:17:33] Ronald van der Pol leaves the room [13:19:24] tomohikokohno joins the room [13:22:55] fujiwara leaves the room [13:30:36] dthaler leaves the room [13:32:06] tomohikokohno leaves the room [13:39:56] gaetan1972 leaves the room [13:43:01] gaetan1972 joins the room [13:46:17] gaetan1972 leaves the room [14:04:22] gaetan1972 joins the room [14:06:38] gaetan1972 leaves the room [14:08:57] gaetan1972 joins the room [14:18:18] pierrick.seite joins the room [14:18:36] pierrick.seite leaves the room [14:18:44] gaetan1972 leaves the room [14:21:34] gaetan1972 joins the room [14:26:01] gaetan1972 leaves the room [14:27:06] gaetan1972 joins the room [14:34:26] bernie joins the room [14:52:37] gaetan1972 leaves the room [16:07:00] danwing joins the room [16:10:06] danwing leaves the room [16:55:19] Varun Singh leaves the room [17:00:43] bernie leaves the room [18:16:50] bernie joins the room [19:02:14] bernie leaves the room [21:11:01] bernie joins the room [21:26:14] bernie leaves the room