NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 49th IETF Meeting in San Diego, California. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 12-Oct-00
Chair(s):
Murali Rajagopal <muralir@lightsand.com>
Internet Area Director(s):
Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@eng.sun.com>
Internet Area Advisor:
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@eng.sun.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com
To Subscribe: ipfc-request@standards.gadzoox.com
In Body: subscribe
Archive: standards.gadzoox.com/pub/archives/ipfc/ipfc
Description of Working Group:
The importance of running IP and ARP over Fibre Channels has reached a critical point wherein a standardized approach seems to be the only solution. Historically over the past few years, there have been a multitude of attempts and approaches to implementing IP and ARP over Fibre Channel (FC). This has resulted in islands of implementations with no interoperability. Several vendors from the Fibre Channel Association (FCA) have proposed taking this problem to the IETF with the intent of generating one "standard" specification.
This working group will be responsible for standardizing a specification that will allow IP and ARP to ride over various Fibre Channel topologies, which may include point-to-point, Loop, and Fabric.
The specification will include procedures and protocols for the broadcast of ARP packets between Fibre Channel devices and an encapsulation mechanism to carry IP payloads.
Objectives:
1. Specify a Standards Track procedure for broadcasting ARP packets and resolving IP to FC MAC address and FC MAC to FC port address
2. Specify a Standards Track encapsulation for carrying IP over FC.
Goals and Milestones:
May 99 |
|
Submit to IESG the Fabric Element MIB for consideration as a Proposed Standard |
Aug 99 |
|
Start email discussion on IP and ARP Over Fibre Channel as a Draft Standard |
Nov 99 |
|
Submit final version of Fibre Channel Management MIB as an Internet-Draft |
Dec 99 |
|
WG Last Call on IP Over Fibre Channel for Draft Standard |
Mar 00 |
|
Submit Fabric Management MIB to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard |
Mar 00 |
|
Submit IP and ARP Over Fibre Channel to IESG for consideration as a Draft Standard |
Internet-Drafts:
Request For Comments:
RFC |
Status |
Title |
RFC2625 |
PS |
IP and ARP over Fibre Channel |
RFC2837 |
PS |
Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fabric Element in Fibre Channel Standard |
IPFC WG Summaries:
1 . Agenda for the meeting was discussed.
- Status of drafts
- Presentation of the Management MIB by Steve Blumenau
- Next Steps
2. Status of the Framework Work - draft-ietf-ipfc-mib-framework 03.txt currently being considered for publication as a Informational RFC by ADs. Eric Nordmark said that the draft has to be edited to make it more useful as a Framework document and in the current state seemed unacceptable. Mark Carlson readily agreed to fix this and resubmit the next level draft before the March meeting.
3. Status and Presentation of Fabric Management MIB: Steven Blumenau, EMC Corp. Steve indicated that the latest draft 05.txt marked the completion of the MIB work. Steve (see attachment) gave a high level overview of the MIB. There were couple of minor changes requested of Steve by Kevin Gibbons (Nishan) and Staish Mali (StoneFly). Steve indicated that he will reflect these changesin the next 06.txt draft. Steve said that the 06.txt draft is expected to bethe final draft before the last call.
4. Murali Rajagopal next said that next step was to get the Framework and the Fabic Management drafts out before the next meet. (see attachment) Further, he said that the WG would then have fulfilled its original charter goals. So far the WG has produced 2 Standard Track RFCs and is expected to produce 1 more Standard Strack (Fabric Mgmt) and 1 Informational (Framework MIB) . Murali also said that taking RFC 2625 to the next step has not happebned for several reasons. One the UNH reports had to be somewhat confidential and we could not disclose exactly which vendor supported what. Second, due to changes in jobs of several people involved, there has been problem regarding resources. However, he indicated that he would give it one more try before the next meet.
The WG adjourned with the view that this was most likely no need to meet face-to-face again. The remiander of the work could be handled by email.