[06:18:04] --- bharat.josh has joined
[06:18:21] <bharat.josh> Hi
[06:19:50] --- bharat.josh has left
[07:31:14] --- Ralph Droms has joined
[08:03:51] --- Ralph Droms has left
[09:31:10] --- bharat.josh has joined
[09:36:13] --- Ralph Droms has joined
[09:36:24] <Ralph Droms> Hello.
[09:38:42] <bharat.josh> Hi Ralph
[09:39:12] <Ralph Droms> Looks like the jabber room is working OK.
[09:39:29] <bharat.josh> Yeah!! Sorry about that mail...
[09:39:52] <Ralph Droms> no problem...
[09:39:52] <bharat.josh> I was trying my old connection and that was not working.
[09:40:13] <bharat.josh> If you can say something on mike, I can tell you whether audio cast is working or not...
[09:41:33] <Ralph Droms> Tried the mike...did you hear it?
[09:41:43] <bharat.josh> No...
[09:42:32] --- bnsmith has joined
[09:44:09] <Ralph Droms> OK. I'll try again in a few minutes.
[09:52:57] <Ralph Droms> Just tried dhc WG audiocast. Is it working?
[09:52:58] --- marka has joined
[09:53:08] <bharat.josh> I could not hear you...
[09:53:25] --- apetrescu has joined
[09:53:32] <bharat.josh> I see that its channel 2. Is this correct?
[09:53:48] <Ralph Droms> I don't know.
[09:53:55] --- dhankins has joined
[09:54:12] <bharat.josh> I picked it up from http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf69.html
[10:01:46] --- behcet.sarikaya has joined
[10:02:43] <bharat.josh> Channel 3 is working fine but channel 2 has some issues...
[10:05:00] --- arifumi has joined
[10:06:49] <Ralph Droms> Yes. Bernie Volz reports that there is a little audio but it is very faint. He has his audio at 100% volume and hears some very faint talking.
[10:08:42] --- ogud has joined
[10:10:01] <Ralph Droms> The presenter has made a few changes in the presentation. No significant changes.
[10:10:42] --- narten has joined
[10:10:58] <Ralph Droms> You should be able to follow the presentation from the dhc WG meeting materials. We'll try to upload the new slides.
[10:11:40] <Ralph Droms> 1st slide of 16ng-PD.
[10:12:02] <bharat.josh> ok. Thanks.
[10:12:40] <Ralph Droms> next slide.
[10:14:00] <Ralph Droms> current draft uses RFC 3633 unchanged in 16ng context; may propose a change depending on discussion here.
[10:16:42] <Ralph Droms> Key issue is to define IAID as MAC address.
[10:18:06] <apetrescu> David Hankins speaking
[10:19:25] <marka> audio is being worked on
[10:19:44] <bharat.josh> I am getting it but its very feeble
[10:19:44] <Ralph Droms> OK, thanks.
[10:20:51] <apetrescu> Jari Arkko speaking
[10:22:12] --- arifumi has left: Replaced by new connection
[10:22:42] --- arifumi has joined
[10:23:12] <apetrescu> John Schu... speaking
[10:23:23] --- alexis.hildebrandt has joined
[10:25:11] --- alexis.hildebrandt has left
[10:25:45] <Ralph Droms> John Schnizlein
[10:25:45] <Ralph Droms> ...speaking
[10:26:02] --- dhc has joined
[10:26:17] --- dhc has left
[10:26:29] --- FDupont has joined
[10:26:47] --- FDupont has left
[10:28:24] <bharat.josh> looks like Channel 2 file has been removed.
[10:31:47] <Ralph Droms> I just uploaded slides for Tim Chown's presentation on "Rogue RAs"
[10:32:39] --- sureshk has joined
[10:33:28] --- apetrescu has left: Replaced by new connection
[10:33:44] --- apetrescu has joined
[10:33:56] <bharat.josh> Can someone please confirm if audio is working?
[10:37:10] <Ralph Droms> ch-2 seems to be off altogether now.
[10:37:25] --- behcet.sarikaya has left
[10:37:26] <bharat.josh> Yeah!! The file itself has been removed
[10:38:53] <Ralph Droms> Now discussing "Layer 2 relay agent and relay agent chaining"
[10:39:29] <Ralph Droms> Slide "Relay chaining in DHCPv 4"
[10:39:33] <bharat.josh> Ralph, can you write the questions if any on jabber also?
[10:39:52] <Ralph Droms> I'll try...tough to keep up.
[10:40:16] <apetrescu> I can try too.
[10:40:23] <bharat.josh> I know... but thanks for all your efforts..
[10:41:33] <apetrescu> slide: Changes made from earlier presentations
[10:43:23] <apetrescu> slide: Relay Chaining in DHCPv4
[10:43:41] <apetrescu> Dave Hankins approaching mike
[10:43:58] <apetrescu> DHP: the 02 draft is particularly interesting because we see it in field
[10:44:06] <apetrescu> DHP is actually DH
[10:44:16] <apetrescu> DH: missing the kinds of stuff that L2-relay can't have
[10:44:30] <apetrescu> DH: some guy asked why two DHCP servers were once seen for only one question
[10:44:38] <apetrescu> DH: it was so because it was intercepting unicast
[10:44:53] <apetrescu> DH: things that you can't expect to work the way... I can send you some advice if interested
[10:45:11] <apetrescu> DH: a lot of L@ networks perform sanity checks make sure IP addr dst matches their idea of what the MAC addr dst should be
[10:45:24] <apetrescu> DH: maybe unicast L2 to a client in particular 'cause rfc..
[10:45:35] <apetrescu> DH:those sorts are of these problems
[10:45:53] <apetrescu> DH: a unicast address for L3 agent should reach the L2 agent,,, there's a potential gotcha...
[10:46:14] <apetrescu> DH: a few comments I have I'll send to mailing list: bcast vs unicast... in particular there's no DHCPv4 Release message
[10:46:28] <apetrescu> presenter: match done typically to prevent spoofing atacks;
[10:46:38] <apetrescu> presenter: IP address and MAC on same... to prevent attacks.
[10:46:59] <apetrescu> DH: the problem is, if you're going to unicast then you may trick yourself on your own mac adddr sppoofing deteciton
[10:47:05] --- herve.prigent@jabber.org has joined
[10:47:21] <apetrescu> DH: tiny pieces like that (spoof the antispoofing)
[10:47:31] <apetrescu> John S is JS
[10:47:46] <apetrescu> JS: strikes him that in some saddle glaring ways this reverses the std behaviour rfc4046
[10:47:57] <apetrescu> JS: rfc says you can't chain, only one relay agent
[10:48:18] <apetrescu> JS: other thing says that there should be a trust relationship between the partial relay agent and the relay agent that sets giaddr
[10:48:33] <apetrescu> JS: have you resolved that q on how to establish that trust?
[10:48:47] <apetrescu> presenter: typically there are similar two app...li? boards
[10:49:00] <apetrescu> JS: how L3 agent to L2 agent comes from a proper L2 agent or not...
[10:49:08] <apetrescu> sorry that was presenter not JS
[10:49:31] <apetrescu> presenter: coming from a non-'tress' identity? how L3 agent will authenticate or coming from a proper VLAN?
[10:49:43] <apetrescu> presenter: this is typically a Ethenret connection
[10:49:52] <apetrescu> presenter: there can be various different implementations
[10:50:08] <apetrescu> Ralph Droms is RD
[10:50:43] <apetrescu> RD: consider whether two topics in the abstract: description of L2 relay agent on L2 client clarifications bcp, how to get this correctly (issue 1)
[10:50:46] <bharat.josh> Did JS said RFC 4046?
[10:50:52] <apetrescu> (not sure)
[10:51:01] <apetrescu> RD: second issue is Relay Chaining
[10:51:12] <apetrescu> RD: is asking whether these two issues are of interest to the WG
[10:51:16] <apetrescu> slide: Next Step
[10:51:23] <apetrescu> RD: do we see a home for those two things?
[10:51:37] <apetrescu> RD: those who thjukn is not please raise hand
[10:51:51] <apetrescu> RD: Relay Agent chaining? WG investeticates? how many in favor?
[10:51:56] <apetrescu> RD: how many not in favor?
[10:52:03] <apetrescu> RD: interprets this as consensus
[10:52:09] <apetrescu> RD: there was no support for...
[10:52:16] <apetrescu> RD: needs to formulate for a show of hands
[10:52:24] <apetrescu> RD talks privately to RD
[10:52:28] <apetrescu> to presetner
[10:52:39] <apetrescu> presenter: this is the first time I present that so it might take time
[10:52:47] <apetrescu> co-chair: (name?)
[10:52:54] <bharat.josh> stig
[10:52:57] <Ralph Droms> Stig Venaas (co-chair)
[10:52:58] <apetrescu> co-chair: talks privately to presenter (Ican't hear)
[10:53:04] <Ralph Droms> From private IM: joelja@jabber.com 7/23/07, 10:49 adams should be fixed shortly
[10:53:15] <apetrescu> presenter talks (hushes?) to Stig
[10:53:47] <apetrescu> DH: it may be that what's to do with relay agent option has to do in the context of L2... makes sense, but other 'middleman' may not make sense
[10:54:03] <apetrescu> DH: find a separate option for L2 agents rather than nest rfc...
[10:54:24] <apetrescu> RD hushes to Stig
[10:54:34] <bharat.josh> Actually this was done to keep it similar to IPv6 implementation of Relay Chaining
[10:54:43] <apetrescu> RD: continue this discussion to mailing list: two issues: L2 relay agents and L2 relay chains
[10:55:34] <apetrescu> slide: TAHI DHCPv6 Test Tool for IPv6 Ready Logo
[10:55:49] <apetrescu> Hideashi Enokihara is presenting is HE
[10:55:59] <apetrescu> slide: TOC
[10:57:00] <apetrescu> slide: Original TAHI DHCPv6 Test Tool
[10:57:46] <apetrescu> slide: Thank you for your cooperation!
[10:58:20] --- ogud has left: Replaced by new connection
[10:58:49] --- ogud has joined
[10:59:38] <apetrescu> slide: IPv6 Ready Logo Phase-2 for DHCPv6
[11:00:41] <apetrescu> slide: Target Functionality
[11:01:22] <apetrescu> SV: what do you mean by 'each functionality'? all?
[11:01:33] <apetrescu> HE: no, each one or both.
[11:01:47] --- arifumi has left: Replaced by new connection
[11:02:02] --- arifumi has joined
[11:02:09] <apetrescu> slide: TAHI DHCPv6 Test Tool for IPv6 Ready Logo
[11:02:26] <apetrescu> slide: Conformance Test Results
[11:04:19] <apetrescu> name of speaker?
[11:04:30] <apetrescu> questioner: your list of clients doesn't quite pass
[11:04:36] <apetrescu> questioner: which fails?
[11:04:53] <apetrescu> q: which or what sort of problems have you seen in clients?
[11:04:56] <dhankins> Ted Lemon is speaking.
[11:05:09] <apetrescu> HE: they have issue sending conformant messages
[11:05:15] <apetrescu> Ted Lemon is TD
[11:05:15] --- bharat.josh has left
[11:05:26] <apetrescu> TD: thanks
[11:07:10] <apetrescu> presenter preparing to present (name?)
[11:08:00] <apetrescu> Tim Chown
[11:08:14] <apetrescu> slide: Handling 'Rogue' RAs
[11:08:38] <apetrescu> slide: The issue
[11:10:17] <apetrescu> slide: What can cause bogus RAs?
[11:11:49] --- behcet.sarikaya has joined
[11:12:19] <apetrescu> slide: Some possible answers
[11:15:06] <apetrescu> slide: Thoughts?
[11:17:04] --- BillC has joined
[11:17:20] <apetrescu> DH, JA approaching
[11:17:27] <apetrescu> DH: do you want to 'prog'?
[11:17:30] <apetrescu> TC: yeah
[11:17:43] <apetrescu> DH: dhcpv6 bake-off we discovered that there's a practical situation
[11:17:47] <apetrescu> DH: network without router
[11:18:00] <apetrescu> DH: no RAs in these networks
[11:18:10] <apetrescu> DH: some use of prefix... makes sense
[11:18:34] <apetrescu> DH: already we have situations where at least the prefix we need to have.
[11:18:58] <apetrescu> DH: other side interesting, a RA with a prefix, situation where you want a client to be given a ddress, go to a router in same subnet
[11:19:08] <apetrescu> DH: an area with need to clarification
[11:19:12] <apetrescu> DH: ...
[11:19:26] <apetrescu> JA: agree this is a probme we may run into now and then.
[11:19:32] <apetrescu> JA: not sure DHCP is the answer.
[11:19:55] <apetrescu> JA: at the end of the day either block the RA or change thcleint not look at rogue RA. Is changing the client an option?
[11:20:06] <apetrescu> JA: someone not implementing this is fooled into looking at ...
[11:20:15] <apetrescu> JA: maybe more interesting to look at other solutions
[11:20:19] <apetrescu> TC:...
[11:20:24] <apetrescu> Dave Thaler DT
[11:20:38] <apetrescu> DT: learning the default router address separate from learning the prefix
[11:20:47] <apetrescu> DT: on learning the defrouter address...
[11:20:53] <apetrescu> DT: ...
[11:21:02] <apetrescu> DT: both are fine as being solutions
[11:21:10] <apetrescu> DT: what is the benefit of having another defined solution
[11:21:16] <apetrescu> DT: authenticated DHCP and secure ND
[11:21:34] <apetrescu> DT: having another implementation with the same number of implementations doesn't improve the situation.
[11:21:41] <apetrescu> DT: I don't see a benfit of doing this.
[11:21:59] <apetrescu> DT: you take a secure mechanism and implement it and deploy it.
[11:22:12] <apetrescu> DT: on the prefix stuff: there is a in IPv6 WG ...
[11:22:27] <apetrescu> DT: in IPv6 WG change 2461 and 2461bis whether on-link assumption
[11:22:44] <apetrescu> DT: 2461 said you assume is on link when no router, situation works.
[11:22:56] <apetrescu> DT: onlink assuumpations considered harmful
[11:23:10] <apetrescu> DT: 2461bis: no longer assume that and that is a problem.
[11:23:17] <apetrescu> DT: 2461bis newer implementtions
[11:23:21] <apetrescu> DT:...
[11:23:26] <apetrescu> DT: last thing
[11:23:32] <apetrescu> DT: misconfiguration
[11:23:45] <apetrescu> DT: one difference between SeND and secure D?HCP is the ability to be ... router.
[11:24:04] <apetrescu> DT: SeND keeps the possibliity of misconfiguration on one device, whereas dhcp secure puts it on several
[11:24:11] <apetrescu> DT: having it on DHCP is less desirable.
[11:24:21] <apetrescu> Shin Myiakawa(?)
[11:24:37] <apetrescu> SM: practically,... carrier, ISP.
[11:24:58] <apetrescu> SM:...
[11:25:21] <apetrescu> (sorry guys I'm under 'DCOM' attack)
[11:27:00] <apetrescu> (back)
[11:27:09] <apetrescu> TC: we could create a draft with next step...
[11:27:26] <apetrescu> RD: chair hat off... a draft could be useful, with discussion
[11:27:36] <apetrescu> RD: you pointed out potential solutions
[11:28:03] <apetrescu> RD: interesting to see that even if several solutions were there, DHCP was last one.
[11:28:47] <apetrescu> RD: if no comments then wrapping up.
[11:28:52] --- dhankins has left
[11:28:55] --- marka has left
[11:28:57] <apetrescu> RD thanks and adjourns.
[11:29:08] --- arifumi has left
[11:29:13] --- sureshk has left
[11:29:16] --- Ralph Droms has left
[11:31:25] --- florent.parent@gmail.com has joined
[11:31:33] --- BillC has left
[11:32:22] --- apetrescu has left
[11:34:00] --- herve.prigent@jabber.org has left: Replaced by new connection
[11:34:04] --- apetrescu has joined
[11:34:09] --- apetrescu has left
[11:37:14] --- behcet.sarikaya has left
[11:43:53] --- shubranshu has joined
[11:43:54] --- narten has left
[11:44:51] --- shubranshu has left
[11:59:03] --- ogud has left
[12:22:47] --- dudi has joined
[12:23:23] --- dudi has left
[12:31:46] --- florent.parent@gmail.com has left
[19:50:37] --- miyahiro has joined
[19:52:35] --- miyahiro has left