[11:28:31] --- bnsmith has joined
[11:46:27] --- arifumi has joined
[11:46:40] --- iljitsch has joined
[11:51:48] --- venaas has joined
[11:52:47] --- BillC has joined
[11:56:05] <iljitsch> does anyone have a link to Marla's Word document that Fred mentioned in the agenda? I didn't see it on the list.
[11:57:25] --- nm has joined
[12:01:56] --- BillC has left: Computer went to sleep
[12:02:45] <iljitsch> what's the new room?
[12:03:56] --- nm has left: Replaced by new connection
[12:03:56] --- nm has joined
[12:03:56] --- nm has left
[12:07:23] --- nm has joined
[12:07:39] --- narten has joined
[12:07:49] --- nov has joined
[12:08:09] <narten> Has this meeting actually started yet?
[12:08:13] --- ttt has joined
[12:08:43] <venaas> jabber scribe will be here shortly
[12:08:51] --- rbless has joined
[12:08:51] <iljitsch> yes seems to
[12:08:54] --- rbless has left: Disconnected
[12:09:00] <narten> current topic?
[12:09:11] <venaas> alain durand is at the mic
[12:09:15] <iljitsch> If you want to listen: it's on channel 1, but the audio sucks, I'm not going to listen to this for 2.5 hours.
[12:09:21] <venaas> he and others are thinking about what it takes to make nat-pt work
[12:09:43] <venaas> he wants nat-pt replacement that works well in an IMS network
[12:09:53] <iljitsch> what's ims?
[12:10:00] <narten> is this open mic? Or is this a draft on agenda?
[12:10:03] <venaas> no idea to be honest
[12:10:21] <narten> IMS is 3G stuff
[12:10:31] <iljitsch> can someone please say that the audio is no good?
[12:10:32] --- memo57 has joined
[12:10:52] --- dthaler has joined
[12:10:52] <venaas> it's open mic I think. at least no draft afaik
[12:11:09] --- dudi has joined
[12:11:49] --- shigeya has joined
[12:11:58] --- BillC has joined
[12:11:59] <venaas> he wants nat-pt replacement to be done in ietf rather than 3g
[12:12:12] <iljitsch> what's wrong with nat-pt as it is now?
[12:12:26] <iljitsch> now the audio is completely gone
[12:12:31] <iljitsch> back again, still bad
[12:12:33] <venaas> iljitch: you haven't followed discussion on why it became experimental?
[12:12:57] <iljitsch> I heard something about that, but no, didn't see the discussion, when was that, I'll look it up.
[12:12:58] <BillC> brief overview of docs
[12:13:39] <venaas> iljitch: perhaps a couple of years ago, I would need to look it up as well
[12:13:54] <iljitsch> ok, shutting off my audio, let me know when it's usable, please
[12:13:54] <BillC> 2 docs in ietf editor queue
[12:14:42] <BillC> nat pt waited for review -- started changes requested to doc; can't move from standard to experimental but can move to historic
[12:14:43] <venaas> iljitch: read draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-03
[12:14:55] <BillC> ongoing work
[12:15:01] --- mo7sen has joined
[12:15:05] <iljitsch> stig: thanks
[12:15:46] <BillC> 802.16e networks discussion
[12:16:25] <BillC> draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios
[12:16:37] --- becarpenter has joined
[12:17:59] --- Yoshifumi Atarashi has joined
[12:18:21] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-1.ppt
[12:19:57] --- david has joined
[12:20:05] <becarpenter> is the audio still useless?
[12:20:10] <BillC> ipv6 transport (slide 6) dad is easy
[12:20:50] <iljitsch> yes, audio is still the same
[12:20:50] --- mikemlb has joined
[12:21:13] <becarpenter> send ticket via http://noc.ietf67.org/trac/ with channel no
[12:21:18] <iljitsch> like the mike is inside of some kind of motor
[12:23:27] <BillC> end of presentation -- baker how many have looked at this?
[12:23:46] --- david has left
[12:23:50] <BillC> comment -- it is useful
[12:24:19] <BillC> comment discussioin of shared links, may want to track this
[12:24:59] <BillC> comment requeires a lot knowledge about how wimax is going to work. needs more background about recommendations
[12:25:51] <BillC> baker - wants to get review from mobile ip and another group
[12:26:20] --- psavola has joined
[12:26:25] <BillC> baker - will move toward wg last call
[12:26:45] <BillC> ipsec tunnels
[12:26:55] <BillC> no slides :-(
[12:27:08] <BillC> no slides online, i mean
[12:27:21] <psavola> Re: NAT-PT (-like
[12:27:40] <psavola> Re: NAT-PT (-like) and IMS: this is described in draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-04.txt
[12:28:02] <BillC> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels-03
[12:28:09] --- dmm@jabber.psg.com has joined
[12:28:18] <BillC> completed wg lc in 8/05
[12:28:27] <BillC> added ah, fixed bypass rule
[12:29:01] --- bnsmith has left
[12:29:08] <BillC> received reviews: fixed pad and other easy items; supporting ipsec tunnel mode turned out to be more complicated
[12:29:26] --- dmm@jabber.psg.com has left
[12:30:25] --- bnsmith has joined
[12:30:28] --- vaf has joined
[12:30:45] <BillC> pushed things that don't recommend in appendies; things recommended are in doc
[12:31:11] --- vaf has left
[12:31:18] <BillC> tunnel mode discussion moved to appendix
[12:31:53] <BillC> summary authors believe all issues have been addressed -- questions?
[12:33:29] <BillC> baker -- authors recommend depricating tunnel mode in almost all cases
[12:34:03] <BillC> baker -- connected by tunnel mode back to plant
[12:34:35] <BillC> graveman -- most people who do ipsec, haven't considered mixed mode case
[12:36:15] --- liman has joined
[12:36:25] <BillC> comment -- its a tunnel issue thing -- agrees with recommendation
[12:36:53] <BillC> graveman -- problem defined over 2 years ago
[12:38:17] <BillC> comment - any args for v6 should apply to v4
[12:38:26] <iljitsch> they're going to try a different audio device during the break. I guess this means there won't be any useful audio for this session.
[12:38:39] <BillC> baker -- other things that may open can of worms
[12:38:43] <dthaler> comment = me (dave thaler)
[12:39:11] <BillC> thx
[12:39:41] <dthaler> ipsec tunnel mode, and ip-in-ip transport mode, have exactly the same data packet format, only difference is in IKE, and in internal implementation details
[12:39:47] <BillC> baker - opening wg lc
[12:40:27] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-0.ppt
[12:40:30] <iljitsch> dave: so what's your point?
[12:40:55] <dthaler> just responding to fred about "tunnel mode is what people use"
[12:40:59] <BillC> ipv6 unicast address assignment considerations
[12:41:15] --- elwynd has joined
[12:41:38] <iljitsch> ok too sparse for me without audio
[12:41:38] <dthaler> RFC3884 is a good reference on the topic of ip-in-ip transport mode
[12:42:41] --- david has joined
[12:42:47] <dthaler> the presenter said securing v6-in-v4 should use transport mode since tunnel mode caused too many complications. Fred Baker questioned that saying people use tunnel mode. I was responding to that.
[12:43:00] <psavola> I don't think Fred believes the authors' assertion that transport mode does not necessarily need to mean the whole end-to-end path. :-)
[12:44:04] --- bnsmith has left
[12:44:23] <dthaler> :) yeah, it's end-to-end from the POV of the tunnel endpoints, not what's being encapsulated.
[12:45:34] --- bnsmith has joined
[12:48:09] <BillC> end of presentation - Q: ready for WG last call?
[12:49:35] <becarpenter> I'm told that the NOC will have to swap the sound card but can't do that until lunch break
[12:49:38] <elwynd> and fred is essentially inaudible
[12:49:57] <BillC> baker - will open last call later in december -- encouraging people to think about it at last call
[12:50:35] <BillC> campus translation
[12:51:16] <BillC> chown -- as of last meeting, agreed that they would remove ongoing issues
[12:51:33] <BillC> feel they've done that with current version of doc
[12:51:40] <BillC> tied up some sections of text
[12:51:55] --- sleinen has joined
[12:52:01] <BillC> haven't had a great deal of feedback
[12:52:19] <BillC> couple of sections
[12:52:41] <BillC> sec 4 -- stuff in there that should go out; focus on network
[12:53:15] <BillC> don't have disc about move to v6 only
[12:53:23] <BillC> s/disc/discussion/
[12:54:11] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-5.ppt
[12:54:34] <BillC> s/campus translation/campus transition/ :-)
[12:55:44] <BillC> not intended to be published -- be a living draft ...
[12:55:47] --- pk has joined
[12:56:05] <BillC> baker -- comments? How many have looked at -- a couple of hands ...
[12:57:35] <BillC> carpenter: when we take docs from v6 community to wider ietf; concern about people writing docs assuming that v6 is here and now. need to look from perspective of people who don't believe in v6
[12:57:50] <BillC> baker -- encouraging people to read doc
[12:58:02] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-8.ppt
[12:58:10] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-7.pdf
[12:58:52] <BillC> chown -- revised -01 wg draft
[12:59:46] --- pk has left
[12:59:56] --- pk has joined
[13:00:48] --- nov has left
[13:02:17] <BillC> chown: ready for last call? comments?
[13:03:07] <BillC> comment: generate suggestion to dhcp group about suggestions? e-mail is ok
[13:03:08] --- dthaler has left: Replaced by new connection
[13:03:32] <pk> 'scanning' needs dns review, since it could still be understood to discourage v6 reverse mapping
[13:05:03] --- dthaler has joined
[13:05:21] <BillC> chown: pk's comment relayed -- chown says thanks
[13:05:54] <pk> tnx!
[13:06:02] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-9.ppt
[13:06:17] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-10.pdf
[13:06:24] <BillC> renumbering draft
[13:07:40] --- rbless has joined
[13:10:34] --- nov has joined
[13:11:01] <BillC> draft is written in a discussion style, rather than listing specific targeted recommendations
[13:11:57] <BillC> specific audiences identified
[13:12:37] --- venaas has left
[13:12:39] --- venaas has joined
[13:13:04] <BillC> mailing list: renumbering@ist-ringorg
[13:13:20] <BillC> see presentation for details ...
[13:14:09] --- gr8k@jabber.org has joined
[13:14:10] <BillC> chown: would like wider discussion
[13:14:28] <BillC> chown: perhaps bof at ietf68?
[13:14:56] <BillC> end of presentation: comments?
[13:15:15] <BillC> baker: several discussions; what do people think?
[13:15:28] <BillC> is this specific to v6?
[13:15:48] <BillC> chown: good question. some may be applicable
[13:15:52] <BillC> to v4
[13:16:16] <BillC> chown: bigger issue with v6
[13:16:56] <BillC> chown: can't do multi addresses in v4
[13:17:03] <BillC> baker: people aren't asking question in v4
[13:17:25] <BillC> chown: in v4 people just run nats ;-)
[13:17:43] <BillC> comment: ask questions in document
[13:17:57] <BillC> baker: keep discussion going -- will remain in v6ops
[13:18:17] --- sleinen has left
[13:18:19] <BillC> updated slides :-(
[13:19:13] <BillC> on rfc3484 rules and reqs for policy distribution
[13:19:33] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-12.pdf
[13:19:54] <BillC> necessity of policy distribution:
[13:20:02] <BillC> ipv6 supports multi-prefix
[13:20:20] <BillC> prob 1: combine use of uls and global network
[13:20:29] <BillC> s/prob/problem/
[13:20:46] --- elwynd has left
[13:20:57] <BillC> prob 2: v4 & v6 prioritzation
[13:21:15] --- elwynd has joined
[13:21:19] <BillC> s/prioritzation/prioritization/
[13:21:55] <BillC> hist of auto rfc3484 policy distribtuion proposal
[13:21:58] <BillC> presented at montreal
[13:22:14] <BillC> req for policy dis protocol
[13:22:52] <BillC> can't keep up with slides :-(
[13:24:02] <BillC> conclusion: updated to 01.txt
[13:24:33] <BillC> there should be "distribution requirement"
[13:24:50] <BillC> closing q: can v6ops support this?
[13:25:31] <BillC> baker: we told her to talk to dhcp; v6ops is precluded from doing protocol work; impasse
[13:26:02] <BillC> baker: compromise -- requirements discussion should be done in v6ops; bits on wire will be done in dhcp
[13:26:28] <BillC> baker: is this best solution? comments??
[13:26:39] <BillC> baker: where do we go from here?
[13:26:52] <iljitsch> isn't whether dhcp is the right mechanism something that follows from the requirements rather than something that can be determined now?
[13:28:24] <BillC> comment: problems where interfaces prefer differning interfaces v4 and v6
[13:31:00] <BillC> baker: what constitutes a normal user
[13:32:16] --- pk has left: Computer went to sleep
[13:32:30] <BillC> ilijitsch - q relayed. baker: of course he's right
[13:33:11] <iljitsch> thnx
[13:34:07] <BillC> baker: duraind questioning rfc3484?
[13:34:21] <BillC> comment: is rfc3484 right solution?
[13:35:45] --- juampe has joined
[13:38:59] <BillC> dthaler: some things outside of rfc3484 scope 2 categories: things part of policy table and things not part of policy table
[13:39:22] --- memo57 has left
[13:40:18] <BillC> dthaler: lets rescope docu
[13:41:01] <dthaler> i suggested this doc only cover distribution of source address selection table, and leave anything else to a future doc
[13:41:40] <BillC> duraind: i agree with dthaler, not conclusion.
[13:42:31] <BillC> dthaler: 2 different sets of requirements; 2 different sets of solutions Perhaps 2 different docs?
[13:43:06] <BillC> comment: see if we can come up with a consistent set of requirements? Need to do this first?
[13:43:58] <BillC> baker: 1) discussion that many people are thinking hard about. do you think this should be v6ops item and something v6ops should build requirements?
[13:44:56] <BillC> comment: identify actual data and how it is structured as opposed to how you might put in on the device
[13:45:47] <BillC> dthaler: rfc3484 does it now...
[13:46:40] <BillC> baker: where is update going to occur. will need to talk to ad.
[13:47:00] --- elwynd has left
[13:47:07] --- elwynd has joined
[13:47:11] <BillC> baker: post as ietf doc. Lets get requirements right. it sounds like we're going to update rfc3484
[13:47:11] --- becarpenter has left
[13:47:32] <BillC> baker: we're going to work on requirements here
[13:49:01] <BillC> baker:new discussion: someone asked for advice for isps re management of prefixes. Lots of discussion pointing in different directions
[13:49:15] <BillC> iab discussed this
[13:49:58] <BillC> we all agree present thing doesn't work (what doesn't work??)
[13:50:50] --- david has left
[13:51:55] <BillC> for remainder of this meeting we're looking at question of scalability...
[13:52:17] <iljitsch> scalability of what?
[13:52:36] --- narten has left
[13:52:52] <BillC> david meyer with slides
[13:53:02] --- rzcs@jabber.tu-clausthal.de has joined
[13:53:04] <BillC> update on the iab routing addressing
[13:53:07] <iljitsch> the iab workshop thing?
[13:53:09] <iljitsch> ah yes
[13:53:20] <BillC> yup
[13:54:08] <BillC> why how workshop? scaling roblems and we are the iab, after all; "A is for architecture"
[13:54:12] <BillC> logistic
[13:54:16] <BillC> workshop in amsterdam
[13:54:21] <BillC> 38 attendees
[13:54:29] <BillC> in oct 2006
[13:54:38] <BillC> focused on backbone operators
[13:54:52] <BillC> also had few h/w designers, enterprise types
[13:55:01] <BillC> 18 were iesg, iab or irtf
[13:55:17] <BillC> objectives ---
[13:55:17] --- liman has left
[13:55:51] <BillC> develop a shared understanding of the problems that operators are facing with todays rotuing and addressing system
[13:56:01] <BillC> use that info to inform the ...
[13:56:15] <BillC> findings: scalability of the routing system ins an urgent problem
[13:56:24] <BillC> key finding
[13:56:29] --- becarpenter has joined
[13:56:45] <iljitsch> the second finding is a bit peculiar...
[13:56:55] --- tskj has joined
[13:56:58] <BillC> we may not be able to scale fib memories in an "economically feasible" way -- mooore's law not answer
[13:57:07] <BillC> s/mooore/moore
[13:57:32] <BillC> dynamics in the rib is also an issue
[13:58:18] <BillC> "and of course along with all the vairous contraints: no provider lock, TE, mulithoming ..."
[13:58:19] --- j.schoenwaelder@jabber.eecs.iu-bremen.de has joined
[13:58:31] <BillC> ipv6 doesn't solve these problems
[13:58:41] --- keith_nm has joined
[13:58:51] <BillC> more findings: overloading of ip addresses with both id and locator semantics is a problem
[13:59:16] <BillC> discusion as to wheather this is a solution to the M&M requirement or is ...
[13:59:34] <BillC> finding: finally these problems are urgent
[13:59:52] <BillC> "lots of discussion about "hit the wall" date"
[14:00:00] <BillC> things will just keep getting more expensive
[14:00:13] <BillC> need to start working on solutions now
[14:00:22] <BillC> meyer's editorial findings:
[14:00:36] <BillC> lots of enthusiam
[14:00:46] <BillC> everyone left with energy
[14:01:07] <BillC> some folks who hadn't engaged with ietf leadership recently re-engaged
[14:01:19] <BillC> lots of positive socialization occurred
[14:01:25] <BillC> next steps:
[14:01:32] <BillC> publish workshop report
[14:01:44] <iljitsch> socialization or socializing? :-)
[14:01:59] <BillC> more work on the architectural aspects of locator/id split
[14:02:09] <BillC> gain/enlarge strong community consensus
[14:03:03] <BillC> seeking broad consensus: we (the I*) are seeking broad community consensus that this is a problem folks want to work on
[14:03:25] <BillC> socialization meaning discussion
[14:03:29] --- liman has joined
[14:03:44] <BillC> end of meyer's presentation
[14:04:09] <BillC> duraind: what was focus?
[14:04:28] <BillC> meyer: we spent last ten years; we don't have a solution and we need to work on one now...
[14:04:55] <BillC> meyer: we don't want to reach point where things are unacceptable
[14:05:18] <BillC> vince approaches
[14:05:43] <BillC> vince fuller scaling issues with routing+multihoming
[14:06:34] <BillC> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-11.pdf
[14:07:44] --- david has joined
[14:08:54] <BillC> routing state growth: 1994: because of cidr amount of state decrease
[14:09:35] <BillC> 2002: linear growth moving to exponential growth
[14:10:01] --- pk has joined
[14:18:22] --- pk has left: Computer went to sleep
[14:20:50] --- rzcs@jabber.tu-clausthal.de has left
[14:21:41] <BillC> regarding slide 8: comment: ted: number of rows low ..
[14:22:26] <BillC> 300-350K routes being carried by top-tier isps for v4 today
[14:22:56] <BillC> fuller: would increase to 381K-561K with ipv6 with dual stack
[14:23:08] --- nm has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:23:08] --- nm has joined
[14:23:08] --- nm has left
[14:23:34] <BillC> will be same number of specifics and multihomed sites with v6 as with v4
[14:26:47] --- nm has joined
[14:27:20] --- keith_nm has left
[14:32:30] --- venaas has left
[14:33:23] <BillC> end of fuller's presentation
[14:33:57] <BillC> baker: officially out of time; skipping two presentations, does want to bring up marla's presentation
[14:34:35] --- elwynd has left
[14:34:53] --- david has left
[14:35:53] <BillC> ipv6 multihoming presentation -- slides not online
[14:35:54] <bnsmith> which presentation
[14:36:07] <iljitsch> marla azinger
[14:36:20] <iljitsch> fred is skipping his family of presentations
[14:36:29] --- gr8k@jabber.org has left
[14:36:37] <BillC> i'm wrong, presentation is at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-11.pdf
[14:40:02] <bnsmith> is this not the last presentation? Is there one for right now?
[14:41:05] <juampe> Marla's http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/v6ops-3.ppt
[14:41:11] --- tskj has left
[14:41:56] <BillC> baker: discussion being cut short. discussion will be taken to the list. Also follow IAB.
[14:42:02] <BillC> Meeting closing
[14:42:05] --- nov has left: Computer went to sleep
[14:42:20] --- dudi has left
[14:42:21] --- Yoshifumi Atarashi has left
[14:43:23] --- shigeya has left: Logged out
[14:43:34] --- BillC has left
[14:43:57] --- psavola has left
[14:44:10] --- rbless has left
[14:44:40] --- iljitsch has left
[14:48:49] --- mikemlb has left
[14:49:16] --- becarpenter has left
[14:53:10] --- arifumi has left
[14:58:51] --- mo7sen has left
[14:59:11] --- nm has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:59:12] --- nm has joined
[14:59:12] --- nm has left
[15:00:51] --- dthaler has left
[15:33:23] --- juampe has left
[15:56:48] --- becarpenter has joined
[15:57:48] --- becarpenter has left
[15:59:52] --- elwynd has joined
[16:05:08] --- arifumi has joined
[16:10:21] --- dthaler has joined
[16:11:49] --- dthaler has left: Replaced by new connection
[16:55:14] --- arifumi has left: Replaced by new connection
[17:08:18] --- mo7sen has joined
[17:09:00] --- mo7sen has left
[17:16:20] --- ttt has left
[17:27:13] --- j.schoenwaelder@jabber.eecs.iu-bremen.de has left: Logged out
[18:12:17] --- elwynd has left
[18:23:23] --- tskj has joined
[18:24:38] --- tskj has left
[18:32:09] --- elwynd has joined
[19:40:30] --- liman has left
[20:39:05] --- elwynd has left
[21:00:30] --- elwynd has joined
[23:17:03] --- elwynd has left