home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
ietf
/
sip
/
sip-minutes-93jul.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-09-16
|
19KB
|
513 lines
CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by Robert Hinden/Sun Microsystems
Minutes of the Simple Internet Protocol Working Group (SIP)
These minutes are based on notes taken by Christian Huitema.
The SIP Working Group held two sessions and a demonstration at the
Amsterdam IETF. The first session was 12 July at 4:00 p.m. The second
session was 15 July at 1:30 p.m. Both sessions were audio/video
multicast on the Internet. The demonstration was held on 14, 15, and
16 July.
Agenda
o Administrivia
o Review of Action Items
o Implementation Status Reports
o Demonstration Plans
o SIP Source Routing
o Review of Recent Work
o Assign Action Items
Administrivia
Bob Hinden introduced the agenda. Ross Callon mentioned his desire to
add transition plans as a discussion item. The item was added, but due
to a lack of time in the second session, was not discussed.
Review of Action Items
ACTION: Everyone read Auto-Configuration proposal and reply to list and
put on agenda for next meeting.
Closed.
ACTION: Simpson and Deering resolve differences and come up with one
addressing allocation/assignment scheme.
In progress. Open.
ACTION: Crocker define and plan Amsterdam demo.
Crocker declined action. Hinden assumed action. Closed.
ACTION: Hinden/Deering agenda for Amsterdam meeting.
Closed.
ACTION: Deering to send message to list outlining IPv4 ID generation
choices and propose a solution.
Open.
ACTION: Gilligan/Mulligan to define and write up.
Closed.
ACTION: Hinden to send Erik F. a message stating that the
w.g. will develop a formal response.
Done at meeting. Closed.
ACTION: Gilligan to post his auto configuration proposal to list.
Done.
ACTION: Jim Bound to coordinate a w..g reply.
In progress. Open.
ACTION: Deering to contact other IPng chairs about coordinating IESG
submissions.
OBE. Internet ADs held lunch meeting with IPng chairs. Closed.
ACTION: Gilligan to revise and reissue BSD API for SIP document.
Submitted as ID. Closed.
ACTION: Deering to work on separate Flow ID document.
No progress. Open.
ACTION: Deering to talk to Ran Atkinson about status of SIP security
proposal.
Open.
ACTION: Christian Huitema: To post as an Internet Draft of DNS changes
for SIP (if not already posted).
Done. Closed.
ACTION: Simpson to get status of IDRP work and report to list.
OBE. Sue Hares reported on IDPR status at working group session.
Closed.
ACTION: Deering/Hinden to ask John Moy to do revision of OSPF for SIP
document.
John Moy (w/ Rob Coltun's assistance) agreed to do a version of OSPF
for SIP. Closed.
ACTION: Deering to write ICMP for SIP document.
Not done. Open.
ACTION: Deering will also include IGMP changes to ICMP document.
Open.
ACTION: Christian Huitema: Will produce a new version of SIP for RIP
document or get Gary Malkin to do it.
Done. Closed.
ACTION: Deering to look at SIP RIP to make sure it includes multicast
support.
Done. Closed.
ACTION: Deering to get first version of SIP addressing document out
before Amsterdam IETF.
In progress. Open.
ACTION: Deering to send SIP list contents to Hinden.
Done. Closed. New ACTION: Hinden to set up SIP list at Sun.
ACTION: Hinden to revise charter and submit to Internet AD's.
Draft written. Open.
ACTION: Gilligan post a message to SIP list asking for volunteers to
deploy and test Sun border router implementation.
Done. Closed.
ACTION: Mulligan send KA9Q code to Simpson.
Done. Closed.
ACTION: Deering to update SIP specification. Small amount of changes.
Not done. Closed.
ACTION: Gilligan/Nordmark to provide updates to IPAE Specification by
June 18.
OBE. Closed.
ACTION: Crocker to do revision of IPAE specification by June 25.
OBE. Closed.
ACTION: Hinden to update and submit criteria as Informational RFC.
Not done. Open.
ACTION: Crocker to ask Marshall Rose to develop SIP MIBs.
Not done. Open.
Implementation Status Reports
o Public Domain BSD
A presentation was given by Werner Vogel. Three BSD implementations
have been done: Initial INRIA, full 64 bits, x-kernel. The target of
INESC is BSD, specifically Mach and x-kernel.
Werner presented the architecture of the INRIA implementation:
o SIP processor in the kernel
o Interface configuration and route set up
o 64-bit ping
o 32-bit TCP and UDP without fragmentation
Other features are implemented but not yet tested.
Performance of the loop-back interface is faster than straight IP.
Performance over Ethernet is equivalent to IP (same figure). NFS (block
of 1K) and AFS work over SIP.
Next steps: more debugging, real 64-bit TCP, transport level support,
integration of routing, use real interfaces, checksums, etc.
o Sun Solaris Implementation
Erik Nordmark gave the presentation. Sun included the ``border router''
code. SIP Multicast is implemented. VAT and NV work over SIP using
multicast address translation. They are working on getting
``traceroute'' to work over the encapsulation, and avoiding the ``lost
ICMP'' problem.
For solving the lost ICMP problem, the SIP process has to keep track of
the tunnel's MTU, and also of the ``unreachable'' status of tunnels.
The TTL exceeded problem is harder to solve. This can be delegated to
the routing process for ``inter-router'' tunnels, but cannot easily be
used for ``tail'' tunnels. Tony Li mentioned that SDR is using ``tunnel
IDs'' (64-bit encapsulation header) in order to solve this problem. He
suggested we look at the SDR IDs.
o SIP IDRP Status
Sue Hares described the status of IDRP for SIP. She said that IDRP is
part of ``gated'' which is already multiprotocol. She needs a SunOS 4.1
implementation (INRIA/INESC) to test the relaying of the packets over
SIP, and for installing SIP routes. She believes the code is modular
enough to install routes without problems. Yakov Rekhter mentioned the
possibility of having extra attributes, for automatically installing
tunnels. Sue also mentioned extensions for multicast, for example,
using the next hop information for memorizing the ``broadcast tree''
from a given source. A base level support could be ready for test
within a month given a kernel. The link between IDRP and IGPs other
than IS-IS is neither done nor funded. She suggested finding volunteers
within the working group. Code is public domain and can now be provided
to ``co-developers.''
She also mentioned that the ISO IDRP specification will soon be
published as an Informational RFC.
Demonstration Plans
Bob Gilligan presented the IETF demonstration set up. There were 6
sites participating:
o IETF at Amsterdam
o Xerox PARC
o TGV
o Sun
o Intercon Macintosh
o Beame & Whiteside (PC with DOS)
The first 4 sites run a SIP border router; at PARC and TGV, an IP host
points to the SIP border router. In the last two sites, PCs and
Macintoshes are isolated SIP hosts, connected to the routers in their
domain space. Metro addressing is used. Werner volunteered the
addition of a BSD SIP host in Portugal to the demonstration.
The demonstration featured Telnet, FTP, Ping, Traceroute, and VAT. FTP
``third party'' connections are limited to using the same prefix as the
control connection.
SIP Source Routing
Charlie Perkins presented the use of source routing for solving the
``mobile routing'' problem. The classical problem is router efficiency:
the forwarding of IPv4 packets with source routes was slow, which lead
to the use of IP encapsulation. Source Routing (SR) also has a bad
reputation for security, though encapsulation has the same inherent
problem. SR has slightly less overhead than encapsulation (16 vs 24
octets). ICMP messages are delivered to the source with SR, and to the
encapsulator with IP encapsulation. There are also slight differences
with fragmentation (reassembly at end of tunnel for encapsulation is
less efficient), and MTU discovery in which tunnels are transparent.
The decision is in fact linked to ``who does what.'' The source itself
should do SR, but intermediate hops should use encapsulation.
On the lesson of the mobile IP experience: The SIP specification should
be clearer about ``reversal of source routed packets.'' It is not very
clear, but it appears that ``layer 4'' solutions are generally
inadequate. This design should really be studied inside the MOBILEIP
Working Group. Tony Li mentioned that it is also being addressed by the
SDR Working Group.
Review of Recent Works
o SIP RIP
Gary Malkin presented comments received from Garcia Luna Aceves on SIP
RIP. The loop detection algorithm is not described precisely, and needs
to be corrected. However, this is a major improvement over previous
version of RIP, with the cost of more CPU. A consequence is that the
maximum number of hops has been raised to 32.
Paul Francis asserted that loops are better than black holes, as you do
not miss packets. He suggested that we look at using a path vector
algorithm. Tony Li rejected the idea of accepting routing loops, as
they are traffic multipliers that generate congestion; he also said that
path tracing is a significant modification of the protocol. He said
that cisco found that path tracing breaks when ``route filtering'' is in
operation. He suggests that DUAL, which includes incremental updates,
and guarantees loop freedom, is looked at. Toni also mentioned that
some networks are larger than 32 hops, and that we should use path
metrics, but that would make the whole thing much more complex.
Tony Li then offered to provide SIP-IGRP, giving change control to the
IETF for SIP-specific extensions! After considerable discussion, the
working group agreed that this should be pursued, given the usual
caveats about licensing agreements and change control.
A proposal was made that SIP RIP should be limited to be used in ``small
networks.'' This raises the question of how should the current SIP RIP
draft be progressed. The working group decided to continue with a basic
version of SIP RIP (without the loop control) and to ask the RIPv2
Working Group to take on the issue of loop control. The current version
of SIP RIP (without loop control) will be called SRIP.
o System Discovery
Bill Simpson led the discussion on the system discovery draft.
Not a lot of implementation was done of the current version of the
Router Discovery ICMP message type. It was nice, but it lacked
extensibility. The current draft proposes a ``single block with
extensions'' format:
____________________
|_SIP_+_ICMP_headers_|
|_IFACE_____________ |
|_MAC_______________ |
|_Services__________ |
|_Security_label____ |
|_Changed_prefix____ |
|_QOS_______________ |
|_Authentication____ |
This format is similar to Novell's SAP. There are two messages:
solicitation and response. The message operates similarly to the
router's advertisement ICMP. ``Changed prefix'' is intended to enable
dynamic address reconfiguration, which should have similar effects on
TCP as on the current IP mobility solutions, i.e. require some form of
source routing to retain the existing address.
The security label is really informational. QOS is ``claiming to be the
router for a particular QOS.'' This, as the security label, is
equivalent to similar fields in the OSPF and IS-IS ``hello'' packets.
The service field is used to advertise the location of particular
servers, e.g. ``DNS'' or ``bootp.''
Tony Li suggested having both a length and an AFI for the ``iface''
parameter. He also suggested making both ``MAC'' and ``service''
optional. Greg Minshall suggest MAC should, on the contrary, be present
all the time in order to facilitate parsing. Greg also suggested that
the experience acquired by Novell suggests that ``service'' is not a
very good idea---he would prefer to use multicast queries. Steve
Deering observes that there are more clients than servers, and that
having servers advertise themselves is preferable (less traffic). Geert
Jan de Groot questioned this assertion, as the ``keep polling with
backup'' is more stable and easier to diagnose (the repeated packet pops
in link analyzers, etc.). Bill Simpson mentioned that the algorithm
which he described is exactly that of ``IP router discovery,'' i.e.,
tested and true.
Paul Francis questioned the utility of the QOS field: there is no such
thing as a QOS per router, but rather per router/destination tuple. The
group agreed that redirection is a better solution. Paul also suggested
that a strictly router-to-host protocol is much simpler than
router-to-router hellos, and that the two groups do not have the same
frequency and complexity requirements.
In order to do this for mobile systems, one also needs to carry a ``list
of routers heard by mobile'' in the solicitation messages send by the
mobiles. This needs to be discussed on the SIP mailing list.
o Host Auto Configuration
Bob Gilligan presented a set of ``preliminary ideas'' that he proposed
to the mailing list on auto configuration. He proposes to represent the
address as a combination of:
Prefix + Suffix
0 63
----------------
| | |
----------------
The suffix part is allocated by the system administrator. The prefix is
heard from the router advertisement. At boot time, the system obtains
(by various means) the ``local suffix'' (e.g. 32-bit IP address); then
it obtains the ``prefix'' from the router advertisement and combines it
to form a complete address.
Christian Huitema suggested that this is a very dangerous scheme as one
can inadvertently boot the system in a new environment where the suffix
is not unique. Bill Simpson suggested using a combination of IEEE 802
and directory names.
Paul Francis suggested the use of a two hop source route: the IEEE 802
unique SIP address of the host, and the router address obtained from the
advertisement.
Conclusion and Assignment of Action Items
Steve Deering mentioned the need for more implementations, and also the
need to start deployment. Members were encouraged to go see the
demonstration in the terminal room, with border routers, VAT over SIP,
Internet Talk Radio acquired over SIP, etc.
Attendees
Kannan Alagappan kannan@DSMAIL.ENET.DEC.COM
Steve Alexander stevea@lachman.com
James Allard jallard@microsoft.com
Frederik Andersen fha@dde.dk
Michael Anello mike@xlnt.com
Anders Baardsgaad anders@cc.uit.no
Dennis Baker dbaker@wellfleet.com
John Ballard jballard@microsoft.com
Nutan Behki Nutan_Behki@qmail.newbridge.com
Per Bilse bilse@ic.dk
Jim Binkley jrb@ibeam.intel.com
David Borman dab@cray.com
Jim Bound bound@zk3.dec.com
Robert Braden braden@isi.edu
Ronald Broersma ron@nosc.mil
Suzy Brown suzy_brown@genmagic.com
John Burnett jlb@adaptive.com
Ross Callon rcallon@wellfleet.com
Peter Cameron cameron@xylint.co.uk
Henry Clark henryc@oar.net
Dave Cullerot cullerot@ctron.com
Walid Dabbous Walid.Dabbous@sophia.inria.fr
James Davin davin@thumper.bellcore.com
Geert Jan de Groot geertj@ica.philips.nl
Stephen Deering deering@parc.xerox.com
Tim Dixon dixon@rare.nl
Kurt Dobbins dobbins@ctron.com
Pierre Dupont dupont@mdd.comm.mot.com
Kjeld Borch Egevang kbe@craycom.dk
Ed Ellesson ellesson@vnet.ibm.com
Mark Fedor fedor@psi.com
Eric Fleischman ericf@act.boeing.com
Paul Francis Francis@thumper.bellcore.com
Shoji Fukutomi fuku@furukawa.co.jp
Robert Gilligan Bob.Gilligan@Eng.Sun.Com
Joseph Godsil jgodsil@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Ramesh Govindan rxg@thumper.bellcore.com
Marcel Graf graf%dhdibm1.bitnet@vm.gmd.de
Terry Gray gray@cac.washington.edu
Chris Gunner gunner@dsmail.lkg.dec.com
Robert Hinden hinden@eng.sun.com
Frank Hoffmann hoffmann@dhdibm1.bitnet
Gerd Holzhauer Holzhauer1@applelink.apple.com
John Hopkins J_Hopkins@icrf.icnet.uk
Christian Huitema Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr
Ronald Jacoby rj@sgi.com
David Johnson dbj@cs.cmu.edu
Marijke Kaat marijke@sara.nl
Tomaz Kalin kalin@rare.nl
Neil Katin katin@eng.sun.com
Ton Koelman koelman@stc.nato.int
John Larson jlarson@parc.xerox.com
Tony Li tli@cisco.com
Marjo Mercado marjo@cup.hp.com
Donald Merritt don@arl.army.mil
Greg Minshall minshall@wc.novell.com
Keith Mitchell keith@pipex.net
Daniel Myers dan@nsd.3com.com
Erik Nordmark nordmark@eng.sun.com
Masataka Ohta mohta@cc.titech.ac.jp
Zbigniew Opalka zopalka@agile.com
Jorg Ott jo@cs.tu-berlin.de
Christian Panigl christian.panigl@cc.univie.ac.at
Charles Perkins perk@watson.ibm.com
David Piscitello dave@mail.bellcore.com
Aiko Pras pras@cs.utwente.nl
James Reeves jreeves@synoptics.com
Alex Reijnierse a.a.reijnierse@research.ptt.nl
Yakov Rekhter yakov@watson.ibm.com
Dan Romascanu dan@lannet.com
Marjo Rottschaefer
Henry Sanders henrysa@microsoft.com
Kitty Shih kmshih@novell.com
William Simpson Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
John Stewart jstewart@cnri.reston.va.us
Fumio Teraoka tera@csl.sony.co.jp
Richard Thomas rjthomas@bnr.ca
Susan Thomson set@bellcore.com
Thierry Turletti turletti@sophia.inria.fr
Hisao Uose uose@tnlab.ntt.jp
Willem van der Scheun scheun@sara.nl
Werner Vogels werner@inesc.pt
Wilfried Woeber Wilfried.Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at
Jessica Yu jyy@merit.edu
Romeo Zwart romeo@sara.nl