Last Modified: 2004-09-28
| Done | Submit IPv6 over Fibre Channel draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 04 | Submit Fibre Channel Domain Manager MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 04 | Submit Fibre Channel Name Server MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard | |
| Nov 04 | Work with T11.5 to determine what additional MIB modules are needed | |
| Jan 05 | Submit Extensions for Fibre Channel Interfaces MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard | |
| Jan 05 | Review working group charter and determine what additional work, if any, should be undertaken by working group |
| RFC | Status | Title |
|---|---|---|
| RFC3831 | Standard | Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Fibre Channel |
|
The IMSS Working Group met on Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 14:15 (2:15 pm) at the IETF-61 in Washington D.C.
The following agenda was presented: Agenda: 2:15: Administrativa (Elizabeth Rodriguez) 2:25: Liaison Report from T11.5 (Roger Cummings) 2:35: New working group drafts: (Keith McCloghrie) Fibre Channel Name Server MIB: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-00.txt Fibre Channel Fabric Address Manager MIB: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt (formerly Domain Mgr MIB) 2:50: New proposed work item: (Claudio DeSanti) IPv4 over Fibre Channel: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-channel-00.txt This draft is a proposed draft that the authors believe should either update or replace RFC 2625. It includes details of differences between RFC 2625 and the I-D. 3:05: Discussion of proposed new work items. (Roger Cummings) INCITS T11.5 would like to propose new work for the IMSS working group to consider. FSPF (Fibre Shortest Path First) MIB Routing Information MIB (routing protocol independent) No drafts currently available. 3:--: Open Mike (time permitting) 3:15: Meeting Concludes Adminstrativa included a greeting, noting that the "note well' statement applies. Elizabeth indicated that the IMSS WG has a very close relationship with the INCITS T11 organization, and T11.5 in particular. T11.5 is a task group within the INCITS T11 Technical committee. In general, the work performed in this working group is a joint effort between T11 and IMSS, with each group providing particular expertise for the drafts -- T11 addresses FC specific criteria and IETF provides the MIB and IP expertise. -- Roger Cummings then presented the T11.5 Status for IMSS. Roger is the T11.5 liaison to the IMSS working group. Two drafts have been submitted from T11.5 and accepted as working group items: draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt and draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-00.txt The presentation 04-740v0.pdf has details on how to access the T11.5 information on those drafts, including various URLs. Roger then presented preliminary information on two drafts that T11.5 is working on. These drafts are the Routing Information MIB (SM-RTM) and Fibre Shortest Path First (FSPF) (SM-FSM) No formal drafts exist yet. T11.5 is targeting July, 2005 for submitting these drafts to IMSS for consideration as official working group items. Roger then mentioned two other items that T11.5 may undertake, which also will likely be presented to IMSS for consideration as working group items. The first is a MIB to address Virtual Fabrics and the second addresses Fabric Routing. Roger discussed the IANA registry created for Fibre Channel Port Types. Roger has been designated the expert reviewer for this registry. Elizabeth suggested it would be beneficial to post the T11.5 SD-3 (proposal documents) that are expected to eventually be submitted to IMSS on the IMSS reflector or as individual submissions to IMSS, so that IMSS has a heads up on what T11.5 is planning on working on and what their contents will cover. -- Next Keith McCloghrie presented more information on the first two MIBs that have been submitted to the IMSS working group as official working group items -- draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt and draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-00.txt mentioned before. He began with a brief history of FC MIBs that have been worked on in the past. The first FC MIB was the FC entity MIB, RFC 2837. Next was the Fibre Alliance MIB that was submitted to the IETF, eventually withdrawn. T11 did publish this draft eventually as MIB-FA, but only as informational, not a standard. IP Storage then defined the FC MGMT MIB, which merged the above two MIBs. This draft has completed IETF Last Call and been approved by the IESG. Elizabeth pointed out that one of the issues that came out of this work is that some people felt that T11 did not have enough say in this document, even though individuals did participate in the development. This is one of the reasons for the joint work that T11 and IMSS are doing now, so that both organizations have an opportunity to "bless" the document. When an outline for 9 new MIBs were presented to the IPS WG for consideration as working group items, it was decided that instead we would develop a process by which the drafts would be worked on first in the T11.5 working group to insure conformance with T11 FC standards. The MIBs would then be transferred to IMSS. This working group will insure that they conform to SMIv2 and consistency with other MIBS. The drafts would not become T11 standards, only IETF standards. Keith presented more information on the draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-00.txt and draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib.00.txt. See the presentation for more details. FAM contains two MIB modules: T11-TC-MIB and T11-FC-FABRIC-ADDR-MGR-MIB. T11-TC-MIB module contains only FabricIndex. For current FC specks, this value always 1, but added for future proofing -- corresponding to new work in FC-SW-4. Tables indexed by FC Mgmt Instance (FC Mgmt MIB), switch index and fabric index. Contains 5 tables and three notifications. NSM contains 1 MIB module: T11-FC-NAME-SERVER-MIB, 5 tables and 1 notification. Indexed by Management Instance (FC mgmt MIB) and subset index. Confirmation requested that the IMSS working group does want to work on these drafts. Consensus. Next step is to have discussion on IMSS mailing list to see if there any changes or updates required for the FAM and NSM MIBs. One point was bought up that there were some items in a previous T11 version of the draft that were removed due to no corresponding standard in T11 containing the information. This has changed, and as such, the possibility of making changes to the MIB corresponding to these new additions to the T11 standards should be considered, since these changes would likely otherwise result in this MIB requiring a revision later. Once changes have been considered and, if necessary, made, conducting a WG last call, potentially in January or February, for these drafts will be considered. One thing that T11 needs to figure out is if a process needs to be developed for T11 to take some kind of vote confirming changed made in the IETF, probably in the same timeframe that IETF is conducting WG last call. -- Next Claudio DeSanti presented IPv4 and ARP over Fibre Channel. Prior to Claudio making the presentation, Elizabeth gave a little bit of background. Specifically, the first WG item undertaken by IMSS was IPv6 over FC, which became RFC 3831. RFC 3831 targeted IPv6 only, since RFC 2625 addressed IPv4 over FC. The intent had been to take RFC 2625 to proposed standard, but it was determined by several people interested in advancing RFC 2625 that this was not feasible. So, in T11 task group T11.3, new work was undertaken to develop a draft to fix the issues from RFC 2625. An IPv4 over FC draft has been submitted for consideration by this working group as draft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-channel-00.txt. This draft is targeted to replace (obsolete) RFC 2625.One question needs to be addressed is what is the appropriate process for performing this work, since we have an RFC that addresses IPv4 over FC and another that addresses IPv6 over FC, and typically all new work is supposed to cover both IPv4 and IPv6. Should the new draft also replace RFC 3831? Some issues with RFC 2625: N_Port_Name format restriction to using only NAA=1, and requiring use of FARP. NAA is an address format used by FC, and NAA=1 is a 48 bit MAC like address format. FARP is a Fibre Channel ARP format defined in 2625, but that has major problems. Many vendors did not implement ARP. Some disk vendors do/did not tolerate receiving FARPs and could cause errors, including errors for an unrelated device on the network. Consensus in T11 that RFC 2625 should be replaced with this new work. Also makes sense to create a unified document replacing both RFC 2625 and 3831. The new document would be 100% backward compatible with 3831, since the new draft is based on 3831. Question asked regarding FARP -- will the new draft prohibit FARP - Response no; would not prohibit, but would not require. Confusion over the term exchange. In this context of this discussion, exchange refers to Fibre Channel Exchange, not exchange of IP packets. The combined document would have no technical changes to the IPv6 over FC component of the draft. New draft would have changes to the IPv4 component -- namely all commonly used Name Identifier formats (NAA) are supported; ARP simplified, FARP not required. Missing functionality such as IPv4 Multicast support added. Bert does not see a problem in replacing both RFC 2625 and RFC 3831, but need to consult with Margaret Wasserman, since this is not his area of expertise. David Black expressed the opinion that he feels this is the right idea. Elizabeth needs to follow up with Margaret to confirm she is OK with this. Send to Margaret Claudio's slides. Needs to be discussed with the IESG. Consensus call: Does anyone object to this becoming a new working group item, pending approval by the IESG. -- No objection. Is there any interest in working in this group to work on this draft. Consensus yes. First official IMSS draft will be combined draft. Discussion of SM-FSM and SM-RTM, briefly touched on at the beginning of the meeting. Elizabeth emphasized that the work on these drafts needs to be crossposted to both T11.5 and IMSS mailing lists. The drafts themselves should be submitted to both organizations. No further discussion. Meeting concluded. |