IPNG Directorate (NGDIR) Reported by Scott Bradner/Harvard University The IPng Directorate held an open meeting on Monday afternoon. The session was a joint meeting with the IPNGWG BOF. The format was that the IPng Directorate sat at the front of the room and invited questions from the attendees: o What is the expected/necessary address assignment efficiency of IPng addressing proposals? This question should be asked tomorrow at the Address Autoconfiguration BOF (ADDRCONF). o What is the relationship of private IPv4 addresses (``net 10'') and IPng addresses? This needs to be covered. Large users need to get large blocks of addresses with no questions asked. There is also concern about the relationship of mobility and autoconfiguration. What is the effect of mobility and autoconfiguration of addresses with authentication (how do you authenticate with a changing IPng address unless you use an EID?). o The opinion that 16 byte addresses are too big was expressed. o What is the trade-off between time (getting the protocol done quickly) versus getting autoconfiguration and security into the protocol? Autoconfiguration and security are important carrots to get people to use IPng. The trade-off between making IPng better than IP (so people will use it) versus keeping IPv4 to be as good as it can be. o We sound like we are not quite done, sort of like IP TOS. True, but we are older and wiser now. o DNS is not very robust, let's not depend upon it (it is ``already breaking''). The network is growing, adding autoregistration, and security depends upon DNS. Much of the problem with DNS is the implementation, not the specification. o Concern was expressed about IPng and scaling, e.g., exponential address space growth, address space density, and flows. The claim is that in practice the limit in routers is destinations per second. There is also concern about source routing---what service provider will allow users control over routes? EIDs are evil. o It was stated that in order to put flow state into routers we need to be able to aggregate flows. o Concern was expressed about address autoconfiguration. Host configuration is a host management issue. Management software at a high level is needed. o The opinion was expressed that we must focus on/stick to the schedule. Commit to keeping to the schedule and solving problems that we know how to solve. During the IPNGWG BOF part of the meeting, Steve Deering presented the working group charter.