MBONE Deployment WG IETF-73 (1st session) Tuesday, November 18, 17:10-18:10 CHAIRS: Marshall Eubanks Hiroshi Ohta Note taker: Gorry Fairhurst 1. Update from the Chairs. o Administriva o Review and status of work items RFC published - None. WGLC since the last IETF: draft-ietf-mboned-multiaaa-framework-07 draft-ietf-mboned-lightweight-igmpv3-mldv2-04 RFC-Ed queue - None. The draft lightweight-igmpv3-mldv2 had received strong support at the last meeting, but had no comments from the WGLC. Hideaki: There are now two versions of IGMP. Which one should be recommended? Marshall: Either - it depends on the implementation, both standards are valid and they interwork. AD: Is the document "draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-06" active? Hiroshi: It automatically expired. AD: Would you like to resubmit this for an AD Review? Hiroshi: Yes, we will do that. The addrach-05 draft has been waiting for a reference and can progress when this is resolved. 2. Active Drafts * draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-06 (Stig Venaas) Many WG comments had been received during the WGLC, and a separate call had been made leading to this now being put forward as PS. After WGLC a new revision had been made. There were also a few pending editorial typos to fix, some wording on recommendations. Stig expected to complete a new revision in a few weeks. Gorry; I think the changes you suggest on the slide to the recommendations address my concern on specifying the safe behaviour for use on the general Internet. A couple of SHOULDs would be great. The WG was asked if an IP multicast address group (IPv4 and IPv6) should be allocated as a default. Stig could see advantages in both approaches. Marshall: (as member of the WG) said that if you needed an address, it was best to ask in the document, rather than needing a new document. He could see some advantages in using a well-known address. More addresses can always be requested. Gorry: Defaults are good, at least when people see the packets, they know what they are and do not view it as suspect traffic (firewall configs may know this too). Bill Atwood: People will use a default, whatever it is. Stig: This does not work well with lots of users using a single group. An admin should know how to change the groups. Stig asked for more opinions on whether there should be a default group? - there were none in the room. He would welcome more feedback via the list. Marshall said this I-D had now passed WGLC. The next version would be submitted to the WG AD. Hiroshi is to be the proto Shepherd. * draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-02 (Hitoshi Asaeda) Marshall: How do you determine the MTU used by mtrace? Hitoshi: It needs to be chosen - there is no PMTUD. Marshall: What would be a suitable value? 1450B? Some other value? Gorry: Why do we not pick a value of 1280 or something that gives us very good confidence that it will work with tunnels and IPsec etc. on top of an Ethernet MTU? Stig: How many hops would this limit the trace? How many bytes do we need for a hop? Marshall: It looks like 100 bytes or so per hop. Stig: That is not so good, 12-15 hops is not very many. I regularly see more than this. Marshall: There was an old IPv4 address allocated to mtrace. Is anyone still using this? Stig: I am. So I suspect others are also. * draft-ietf-mboned-session-announcement-req-00 (Hitoshi Asaeda) Lenny: Is SAP now obsolete? There is no single wed page for unicast, multicast is not really different. Hitoshi: This is a different problem. There is ephemeral content. Lenny: I do not see how this is different to a program guide. Marshall: There is interest in this. There is no good standard for multicast. Tom: I see this as a search problem, not a specific multicast problem. Bill Atwood: SAP comes from a time when we did not have the web. Hitoshi: A central server approach is not enough - this document gives requirements that need to be clarified. Bill Atwood: Any successful service will find a way to advertise their content. * draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-04 (Michelle Cotton) This I-D is about to be updated to -05. It seems ready for WGLC (hopefully before San Francisco). Michelle suggested there would also be further work on the IANA process in a separate document. Marshall: Who had read a recent version of rfc3171bis? About 15 people had read this document. Marshall: Who thought the next version would be ready for a WGLC? About 10 people. Peter Koch: I need to do work on the DNS document for IPv6. Stig volunteered to act as an IPv6 expert (but had not yet been called upon for this). Marshall would be chasing this, since another I-D relied upon this. Meeting closed at 18:17. MBONE Deployment WG IETF-73 (2nd session) Thursday, November 20, 9:00-11:30 CHAIRS: Marshall Eubanks Hiroshi Ohta Note taker: Marshall Eubanks In this session, Mr. Dino Farinacci presented multicast LISP (Locator/ID Separatin Protocol) issue. It is related to the following drafts: - draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt - draft-farinacci-lisp-07.txt Comments were solicited.