Autoconf at IETF'74

Minute takers: Christopher Dearlove, Ronald in 't Velt
Minutes edited by the chairs.

Agenda:
	o	Notes takers, blue sheets, agenda bash 
		(5 min, Chairs) 
		
	o	WG status update 
		(5 min, Chairs) 
		
	o	New Charter 
		(10 min, Chairs) 
		
	o	Status Update from Design Team 
		(30 min, Design Team)

WG Status Update
================

	This meeting was postponed from Monday to Thursday,
	in order to allow the newly established Design Team
	to meet.

	The WG bids farewell to Shubhranshu Sing and thanks
	him for his services. At the same time, the WG
	welcomes Ryuji Wakikawa, who'll be chairing this wg
	with Thomas Clausen.

New Charter
===========

	At IETF'73, the WG experienced a major reset, which
	triggered a new charter, approved by the IESG shortly
	before IETF'74:
	
		o	existing WG documents are declared deprecated,
			specifically:

				-	draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch
				-	draft-ietf-autoconf-statement

		o	the new charter has as sole workitem to describe
			*a* workable and practical addressing model for 
			MANETs:
			
				-	initial I-D April 2009
				-	submit to IESG September 2009

	A design team has been established to propose kick-start
	this work, with the following participants:
	
		o	Teco Boot, Emmanuel Baccelli, Charles Perkins,
			Mark Townsley, Thomas Narten, Ulrich Herberg.
			
	The design team works on a mailing-list, archives are
	publicly available:
		
		o	http://lists.thomasclausen.net/pipermail/autoconf-dt/
		

Status Update from Design Team
==============================

4 presentations, in order, Herberg/Perkins/Boot/Baccelli.

Ulrich Herberg
--------------

	MANET interface has unique address, which is a /32 (IPv4) or /128 (IPv6)
	3 example configurations, including use of "unnumbered interfaces"

Carlos Bernados:
	question about use of address for more than one interface
	and about what is a "MANET interface"

Thomas Narten:
	question about assignment of address to unnumbered interface.
	
Thomas Clausen:
	used as source IP for IP datagrams generated by router.
	
Teco Boot:
	use of unnumbered is well specified in some existing cases (RFCs, pt-pt).
	

Charles Perkins
----------------

	One slide on what AODV did for subnets (not required, could flat route,
	but may be required). Consistent with normal expectations of what subnets
	are.

Erik Nordstrom:
	clarifying question, are there implementations (last bullet slide, multiple routes)

Teco Boot
---------

Vehicle network with vehicles with 2 MANET routers, 3 wireless networks,
multiple hosts. Applications on routers use loopback address. Interfaces
have sub-prefixes, /32 for loopback. Longest match forwarding.

Thomas Clausen:
	is the network multihomed? Yes. Not clear on cases where two routers
	manage single Ethernet. 
	
Joe Macker: 
	yes. 

Thomas Clausen:
	same prefix is delegated to two routers, how is this done? Is this a novelty, done anywhere else?, how to do this?
	
Erik Nordstrom:
	would require some special magic. 
	
Teco Boot:
	both routers are in same vehicle, guaranteed together. 
	Done statically (response to question from Thomas Clausen).

Carlos Bernados:
	This is possible in NEMO, no?
	
Ryuji Wakikawa:
	Not in NEMO basic support

IPv6 case, use EUI-64 layer 2 address, CGA (RFC3972) or random (RFC 4941).
IPv4 link local, not certain, being tested. RFC 3927 169.254.0.0/16 (or
class E?) static or automatic configuration.

Erik Nordstrom:
	why do need to do this in IPv4? Link local not as well
	developed in IPv4 as IPv6. 
	
Teco Boot:
	only routing protocol uses link local addresses.

Simple MANET router can use link local address. With single MANET interface
has unique address.

Emmanuel Baccelli
-----------------
Design Team rationale. Defined MANET protocol, MANET router, MANET interface, MANET routing domain.

MANET router components (three cases).

MANET interface configuration, address assigned to MANET interface, unique
within MANET link.

Carlos Bernados: 
	What is MANET link? 
	
Joe Macker:
	should be MANET routing domain (issues of heterogeneous links).

Thomas Narten:
	DT discussed long time. Most view that is MANET routing
	domain, Teco Boot may not need that in all cases. Decided to leave 
	in this form.

If unique outside MANET routing domain, can communicate globally.

Practical and conservative addressing requirements: MANET interface addresses unique throughout MANET routing domain.

Prefixes configured on MANET interfaces must comply with standard IP
on-link model (RFC 3513 section 2.1). All addresses in prefix reachable
within 1 hop, despite radio issues. Problems discussed in draft.

Teco Boot: 
	have we missed anything? 

Joe Macker: 
	were off-link addresses considered by DT, or just on-link?

Emmanuel Baccelli: 
	we have been discussing this

Teco Boot: 
	Joe, do you think this is important?

Joe Macker: 
	started in right place.

Ryuji Wakikawa: 
	Design Team first draft not published yet.

Joe Macker: 
	Note that charter still says IPv6, but some of this is IPv4.
	
Thomas Clausen: 
	Discussion with ADs, many considerations. 
	
Emmanuel Baccelli: 
	Charter on website is out of date. New charter is IP neutral.
	
=======
Meeting Adjourned