Routing Area Director: o Bob Hinden: hinden@eng.sun.com Area Summary reported by Bob Hinden/Sun Microsystems New Internet Routing and Addressing Architecture BOF (NIMROD) The group reviewed the current draft working group charter and the latest proposed terminology list. General satisfaction was expressed with the current state of both. Discussion then moved on to some of the open architectural issues. Among the points discussed were: o Can areas overlap? o Are abstraction levels identified explicitly? o Do the nodes in the graph of the network represent interfaces or routers/networks? o Do interfaces have locators? o Are the labels which elements of locators globally unique? o Do locators grow up, down, and can they be expanded in the middle? o Are partial locators possible? o Do routers have locators? o Do we have separate namespaces for interfaces and endpoints? o What is the smallest thing which can be an endpoint? o Do we have a hop-by-hop mode, or just source routed packets and flows? o Do we retain the EGP/IGP split? o When do we tackle multicast? The following action items were decided on: o The meetings at the next IETF should be scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday mornings if possible. o All new open issues raised during the working group meeting are to be sent to the working group mailing list. o The chair will include the new points, re-sort the list into priority order, add a new category of ``local'' for issues, and resubmit. o A document showing the outcome of the discussions on the open items will be prepared and sent to the list. o A moderated list discussion will take on remaining open issues. o Scheduling a Boston interim meeting will be investigated. o The working group agreed to have a draft of the architecture RFC, prepared by the end of January 1994, for final examination at the March IETF. Border Gateway Protocol Working Group (BGP) and OSI IDRP for IP Over IP Working Group (IPIDRP) The BGP and IPIDRP Working Groups met jointly. All outstanding technical issues with the BGP-4 protocol were resolved. The resulting changes will be incorporated in the appropriate documents, and the documents will be submitted as Internet-Drafts before Thanksgiving with the purpose of advancing BGP-4 to a Proposed Standard. The group also discussed IDRP status and several future enhancements to BGP/IDRP, including domain partition repair and router servers. Inter-Domain Multicast Routing Working Group (IDMR) The two PIM documents (PIM = Protocol Independent Multicast, formerly ESL), dense and sparse modes, were presented and discussed. Though some details about the phase shift between sparse and dense mode need to be worked out, the general consensus of the group is that the multiple scaling modes approach is desirable. Implementation of PIM will continue. No work was done on CBT, but a status report was given describing CBT's state of implementation (almost done). There is still interest in CBT as valuable work, either as a potential alternative to PIM (if PIM proves overly difficult), or as an Experimental Protocol. The group decided to propose a new name and charter to better reflect that the focus is no longer strictly inter-domain, but rather scaling versus quality in general. Paul Francis will generate the proposal. Inter-Domain Policy Routing Working Group (IDPR) The IDPR working group met for one session during this IETF. It spent the majority of the time discussing what is being called IDPR version 2. Version 2 contains support for multicast and multipath routing as well as policy-based resource allocation. The gated implementation of version 2 will begin its testing phase next month. In the early spring, an Internet-Draft will be produced describing the changes to the IDPR version 1 protocols to support this functionality. The group also received a presentation (via videotape) on the "Routing by Preference" work of Yuko Murayama and colleagues, and we plan to discuss this more on the mailing list. At the request of the Routing Area Director, the IDPR working group will conclude with this IETF. The group will restart when either an additional independent implementation of IDPR version 1 can be submitted for Draft Standard or when the Internet Draft specification of version 2 is complete. In the meantime, the mailing list will remain open. Also, there are two new Internet-Drafts, both updated versions of existing documents. One is the MIB and one is the DNS modifications for IDPR. We plan to submit the MIB for consideratin as a Proposed Standard. IP Routing for Wireless/Mobile Hosts (MOBILEIP) The MOBILEIP Working Group held an interim meeting on the 9th and 10th of September in Summit, New Jersey. The two day meeting was quite productive. We agreed on a basic model for how mobile-ip works. We then discussed the various messages and information that would need to be passed between the various entities. We selected an editor for the working group document---Charles Kunzinger from IBM. (Charlie was previously editor of the ISO IDRP effort.) The MOBILEIP Working Group met twice at the 28th IETF. Charlie Kunzinger gave a tutorial introduction to the first draft document he has produced. The group then reviewed this draft and also reviewed the work of three other members of the working group (who have formed an alliance; before they had between them four or five documents, and now only one). The group plans to have a firmer draft by the end of the year. There are plans for another interim meeting in January. We hope to have a draft specification by the Seattle IETF (and maybe even an implementation or two). IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group (ISIS) The ISIS Working Group meet for one session. The major topic discussed was multicast support in ISIS. Three types of multicast were identified: ``anycast'' for the nearest service location, dense multicast, and sparse multicast. The first two could be supported by ISIS while sparse multicast is best done by some multicast tree approach. This work needs to be brought to the attention of the IDMR Working Group. The working group also discussed the IPX and Appletalk integration scheme (available as an Internet-Draft) and Novell's NLSP protocol which was derived from ISIS. The group drew up a list of work items, some of which would require enhancing the protocol as defined in the latest ISIS Internet-Draft. Incorporating these changes would probably require defining a new version of the ISIS protocol. Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group (OSPF) The OSPF Working Group met on Wednesday, November 3. The following items were discussed: o Status Overview o OSPF Scaling Issues - "Ringing It Out At The Next Level" o On-Demand Circuit Proposal o NSSA Implementation And Status o MIB Changes And Status RIP Version II Working Group (RIPV2) The RIP-2 Protocol Internet-Draft was approved by the working group for submission for consideration as a Draft Standard to replace RFC 1388. The MIB was similarly approved to replace RFC 1389. There are two new implementations of RIP-2, bringing the total to four. Details on the implementations will be provided in a revision of the RIP-2 Protocol Analysis which will be done this month. The Demand Circuit Routing Internet-Draft by Gerry Meyer was approved for submission for consideration as a Proposed Standard. The Protocol Analysis Internet-Draft will be submitted as an Informational RFC. Consideration of the SIPP-RIP draft, particularly the Loop Detection algorithm, was postponed until RIP-2 has been accepted as a Draft Standard (so as not to affect that effort). Discussion of the algorithm will be started next month on the ietf-rip mailing list and will be discussed in detail in Seattle. Routing over Large Clouds Working Group (ROLC) The ROLC Working Group met for two sessions. The first session had a brief review of the charter, and a discussion of the assumptions about media and network topology. The group briefly discussed the IS-IS over NBMA and RIP over demand circuit documents. There were some issues raised, which will be carried back to the relevant working groups. The second session was devoted to a discussion of two documents. The discussion of the Braden/Postel/Rekhter architectural document raised a number of issues. There was definite support from this working group for the general purpose and approach. The group consensus was that certain solutions less favored in the document (query/response mechanisms) were important tools. The group then reviewed the details of the NHRP proposal. It discussed the behavior in the normal case, and the responsiveness to changes in underlying routing. One major flaw which could produce loops was pointed out. An approach to the solution was also suggested. It will be necessary for the group to work more on this issue. There was also the suggestion that we adopt a solution which only works in the absence of address aggregation within the large cloud. The solution and its applicability will be discussed on the e-mail list, while discussion of the more general case continues. Source Demand Routing Working Group (SDR) The working group performed a protocol walk-through of the SDR document, and found that only editorial changes were needed. The working group will be reviewing these changes shortly, and submitting the specification for approval as an Experimental RFC. The working group held brief discussions about route selection and efficient mapping of packets to SDRP routes. Progress on other working group issues was somewhat lacking. Due to personal emergencies, several key members of the working group were not able to attend.