Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/nimrod/nimrod-minutes-94mar.txt

Text File | 1994-08-20 | 8KB | 187 lines

New Internet Routing and Addressing Architecture BOF (NIMROD)

Reported by J. Noel Chiappa and Isidro Castineyra/BBN

The objective of this BOF is to design NIMROD: a hierarchical,
map-based, routing architecture.  NIMROD's stated purpose is to manage,
in a scalable fashion, the trade-off between the amount of information
about the network and the route quality.  A rough draft architecture
document was distributed to the group's mailing list in preparation for
this meeting.  The main purpose of the meeting was the review of the
draft architecture document and the preparation of the work plan for the
next meeting scheduled to take place at the next IETF.

The group met on the Tuesday and Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Isidro Castineyra presented the contents of the draft
architecture document.  The presentation covered the stated objectives
of NIMROD, its main features and presented an overview of its
mechanisms.  The following are among the issues raised by the attendees:


  1. Mobility

     The question that was raised was whether internetworks (nodes in
     NIMROD parlance) are mobile.  In response to this it was said that
     in NIMROD nodes are mobile, but that NIMROD does not propose, at
     this time, a mechanism to support mobility.  The draft architecture
     suggests ways in which NIMROD can support current approaches to
     mobility.

  2. Node expansion

     In NIMROD, a node in a map can be expanded, substituting the node
     for its internal map.  The question was raised of when should one
     look inside a node for more information.  This question was added
     to the open issue list.

  3. What is an endpoint

     The draft says that an endpoint represents a user of the network
     layer---a transport layer entity.  The question was if this means
     that TCP/UDP are two endpoints.  Chiappa answered that the an
     entity that has an end-to-end connection is an endpoint.  It was
     noted that the concept of entity in the draft should be better
     defined.

  4. EIDs and ELs

     The draft proposes two forms of endpoint identifier:  the EID
     (endpoint identifier), and the enpoint labels.  The first one is a
     relative short bit string, while the second one is more like a DNS
     name.  The question was raised whether both of these forms are
     necessary.  It was noted that though the ELs are necessary to
     perform a distributed look-up, they should not be part of the
     architecture proper.  ELs can be considered a user-interface
     problem.

  5. Multiple EIDs per endpoint

     The draft permits an endpoint to have more than one EID. The
     questions was raised whether this was necessary.  It was pointed
     out that there is no apparent way to enforce a single EID per
     endpoint.

  6. Arc's attributes

     The draft defines maps as consisting of arcs and nodes.  The arcs
     are later defined to have attributes.  The question is whether it
     is necessary for an arc to have attributes, as it is more common to
     have the attributes residing in nodes.  It was noted that both
     models have the same power of representation and that the
     distinction was cosmetic, but it was agreed that the next version
     of the draft would try to conform to the more common
     representation.

  7. Connectivity specifications dynamics

     Connectivity specifications describe the capabilities of a node.
     The question was raised whether these specifications are
     dynamic---that is, whether, for example, they indicate the current
     load of an element of the network.  It was pointed out that dynamic
     specification might not scale.  It was also pointed out that a
     specification could have different parts with different degrees of
     dynamism, and that each part could be distributed differently.

  8. Border points

     Nodes have border points to which arcs attached.  The question was
     raised of why are border points necessary.  It was answered that
     border points are used to be able to separate the internal
     description of a node (its internal map) and its connection to the
     outside.

  9. Bidirectional arcs

     The architecture uses both unidirectional and multipoint arcs.  The
     question was raised of why were bidirectional arcs not included.
     It was pointed out that a bidirectional arc can be represented with
     either unidirectional or multipoint arcs.


On Wednesday a set of issues was chosen for discussion by the group:


   o Arcs and nodes:  different representations
   o When to look inside of a node
   o Dynamics of connectivity specifications
   o Work plan


The group decided to continue refining the architecture document using
the output of this meeting and discussions in the mailing list.  Work on
the protocols should also start in this period.


Attendees


Edward Allen             [e-mail]
Michael Anello           [e-mail]
Bashir Ashrafi           [e-mail]
Ute Bormann              [e-mail]
Michael Bradley          [e-mail]
David Bridgham           [e-mail]
Jerry Burchfield         [e-mail]
Randy Bush               [e-mail]
Ken Carlberg             [e-mail]
John Carlson             [e-mail]
Isidro Castineyra        [e-mail]
Brett Chappell           [e-mail]
Luo-Jen Chiang           [e-mail]
J. Noel Chiappa          [e-mail]
Roger Cyganer            [e-mail]
Avri Doria               [e-mail]
Havard Eidnes            [e-mail]
Robert Elz               [e-mail]
Jerome Freedman          [e-mail]
Shoji Fukutomi           [e-mail]
Vince Fuller             [e-mail]
Dragan Grebovich         [e-mail]
Joel Halpern             [e-mail]
Dimitry Haskin           [e-mail]
Kenneth Hays             [e-mail]
Ian Heavens              [e-mail]
Roland Hedberg           [e-mail]
Jan-Olof Jemnemo         [e-mail]
Bent Jensen              [e-mail]
Frank Kastenholz         [e-mail]
Sean Kennedy             [e-mail]
Edwin King               [e-mail]
Jim Knapik               [e-mail]
John Krawczyk            [e-mail]
Robert Kummerfeld        [e-mail]
Joshua Littlefield       [e-mail]
Peter Lothberg           [e-mail]
Charles Lynn             [e-mail]
Jamshid Mahdavi          [e-mail]
Gerry Meyer              [e-mail]
Kim Morla                [e-mail]
Kenneth Mueller          [e-mail]
Sandra Murphy            [e-mail]
Brad Parker              [e-mail]
Andrew Partan            [e-mail]
Michael Patton           [e-mail]
Maryann Perez            [e-mail]
James Philippou          [e-mail]
Rex Pugh                 [e-mail]
Murali Rajagopal         [e-mail]
Ram Ramanathan           [e-mail]
Robert Reschly           [e-mail]
Duncan Rogerson          [e-mail]
Joshua Seeger            [e-mail]
William Simpson          [e-mail]
Frank Solensky           [e-mail]
Martha Steenstrup        [e-mail]
Bernhard Stockman        [e-mail]
Dan Tappan               [e-mail]
Jerry Toporek            [e-mail]
Jost Weinmiller          [e-mail]
Walter Wimer             [e-mail]
Shian-Tung Wong          [e-mail]
Kwang Yao                [e-mail]
Kisong Yoon              [e-mail]
Lixia Zhang              [e-mail]