--------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Droms (droms@bucknell.edu) talks about solicitation #2.
He global comments and how it should fit into the PIER effort. Focus is to send soliciation 2 specifically to vendors. Expects very specific information.
Looking for WG discussion and blessing. Wants to make it parallel and
complimentary effort to the first solicitation. Wants to send individual copies to vendors that are identified.
Howard Berkowitz stresses avoiding duplicating efforts. Paul Ferguson wants to define a framework for the final documents. Bill Manning discusses using the final output to help people. Brian Carpenter talks about the IPng efforts to coordinate responses to
their solicitations.
Elliot Lear stresses his desire to get actual hard specific information
not warm fuzzy information.
Howard B. points out that the people we are soliciting are more operations
people, while the IPng efforts were more focussed on strategic planners. Will Leland points out we should rename it "Vendor Solicitation"
------------------------------------------------------- Drainage of the Swamp in 192/8
Suzanne Woolf from ISI
(The note taker assumes Bill has these slides, since his name is on them) Some people are encouraged, by the numbers, others are somewhat suprised. People discuss the level of educational efforts requested back. Bill asks what we do with the 189 people who responded about renumbering. The 5980 who responded are not the entire list because of a variety of
reasons
Peter Lothberg points out that we shouldn't care about non-routable
addresses.
192/8 takes up about 20% of the current routing tables. (http://www.isi.edu/div7/pier/whose-routes) Bill Simpson asks about the 23 who aren't using their networks, but
wouldn't give it back.
Bill Simpson suggests a BCP about keeping contact information up to date. Steve Bellovin points out that people are scared about giving addresses
back.
Bill points out that one area PIER needs to concentrate on is education. Someone points out that there is a feeling that 192/8 are valuable since
it is such a swamp that it will always be routable.
--------------------------------------------------------- Current Experiences
Elliot Lear from SGI
Going from 1 B and numerous C's to one /16 Emphasis was to stablize their routing.
SGI is somewhat like an ISP since everything is centralized. Most sites
didn't want or have any incentive to renumber. Most sites could not do variable length subnets (ie CIDR).
Had to fix subnet masks at those sites.
Needed to make sure that all routers could run OSPF, get rid of
unnumbered WAN interfaces (using 255.255.255.252 masks). Brought all routers up to same software revision level. Developed scripts to automatically renumber SGI's machine. SGI has a policy to use FQDN's at all sites. Applauds Paul Vixie's bind implementation. Points out that NIS has been a real problem for their large site. NIS Slave Servers are tricky to get the order right, in
terms of getting new maps to them from the master... SGI doesn't have a good DHCP until next release. Next kernel will have support for classless protocols. More discussion about getting OSPF areas to match across unnumbered
interfaces. Also problems with secondary interfaces. Piloted 5 different sites of a variety of sizes, most under 50 hosts.
Will be doing some 2-3 hundred sites soon. Has spent about $700k so far, mostly personel costs.
This is estimated and includes more than renumbering. Instructions are very important.
Ed from Digex
Heavily used options on CISCO's to help a transition plan. Moved a lot of people from /24's to /27's from their CIDR block DNS moves caused the most problems.
Performance concerns about translators.
Yakov has data which he will provide via email. Will provide informal data. Doesn't plan on writing a formal doc.
Brian Carpenter from CERN
8000 node bridged network.
Recabling every building from coax to cat-5 UTP. Everyone must renumber, since they are moving off of the old bridged /16 They are renumbering people in small flag days. People get 4 weeks notice, then two weeks later another paper mail
telling them again, and then an email the day before. A team of 5 people working for 18 months, as well as routers running
EIGRP.
Steve Bellovin from AT&T
Just starting, because of the breakup.
Their addresses are mostly geographic so moves are big impacts. The ability to assign multiple IP addresses are very important.
Solaris, BSDI, SGI (IRIX 5.3 with patches), and a module for SunOS NIS hates renumbering.
Paul Traina from CISCO
Moved from several dozens C's several B's. Done in coordination with a physical move. Sweep teams that came by later to make sure people renumbered okay. Did about 200 each day.
Doing about 6000 hosts at 120-200 sites
Paul Ferguson is the coordinator of this section.
----------------------------------------------------------------- IP Addresses in Applications
Phil described plans to develop a cookbook for specific IP applications. He cited known problems with PROM-coded IP addresses in GE Medical patient scanners; the patient is made transparent by the application, but the application is not transparent to the Internet.
HP Openview and Cabletron Spectrum have been described as problems, but seveal people mentioned these firms have been very responsive to renumbering requests. Elliot commented that SGI primarily had encountered problems with network management products
There was consensus that vendors should be given guidance on how to write applications without hard-coding IP addresses. A short RFC was suggested on guidelines for creating license numbers that did not depend on hard-coded IP addresses.
Steve Bellovin reminded PIER that ipsec will require public/private keys for every machine, and there were a logical choice for license seeds. It was observed that key management for this approach has not been resolved.
Cadence and Mentor Graphics were also mentioned as having hard-coded license keys. Netscape 1.1's SOCKS variable needs to be an IP address, but this may have been fixed in Netscape 2.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Berkowitz - Router Renumbering
Should examples be in text or in appendix. Review current draft
What is the document trying to do?
Comments of CIDR
Notes to ISP's
Comments on dificulties of setting up things for future renumbering Should examples be in text or in appendix. Violent agreement about putting specific examples in appendices.
------------------------------------------------------------------ Meta Discussion
RFC 1916 has come out.
Followup Activities.
Project goals:
Draft syncronizations: April 96
RFI Feedback: July 96
Publish RFC's: Nov 96
Round 2:
Feedback: March 97
Update RFC's: June 97
Dennis O'Leary will talk to Tim about setting up a Web page. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Talk to Alison about http protocol problem with multiple IP addresses for virtual servers. Bill Manning will do this. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger would like to see a document about not using IP addresses in applications.
