Subject: [Ipoverib] Tentative agenda for IETF meeting

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:00:37 -0800

Authors, please check your drafts and make sure I picked up the most recent
one.

If I skipped anyone, or anyone has an additional agenda item - please get
back to me soon.  I would like to send this as a tentative agenda tonight,
and the final is due by Wed at 2 PM (PST) so I will submit it at noon.

Bill Strahm

Agenda 52nd IETF Salt Lake City

Monday	19:30 – 22:00
Agenda Bashing  					5 Minutes	Bill Strahm
MIB Discussions

Textual Conventions Overview 			20 Minutes 	Sean Harnedy
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipoib-ibmib-tc-mib-00.txt

Interface MIB                               			20 Minutes	Sean Harnedy
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipoib-ibif-mib-01.txt

Subnet Management MIB				20 Minutes	Carl Yang
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yang-ib-subnet-management-mib-00.t
xt

Subnet Management Agent MIB			20 Minutes 	Bill Swortwood
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipoib-subnet-mgmt-agent-mib-0
0.txt

Discussion of differences between SM and SMA MIBs 10 Minutes Bill Strahm

Infiniband Connection MIB				20 Minutes 	Bill Strahm

Next Steps						20 Minutes	Bill Strahm

Tuesday	13:45 - 14:45
Agenda Bashing					5 Minutes	Bill Strahm
Encapsulation Discussion

Architecture Draft					20 Minutes 	Vivek Kashyap
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kashyap-ipoib-requirements-01.txt

Encapsulation Discussion				20 minutes	Vivek Kashyap

Next Steps						15 minutes	Bill Strahm

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:41:46 -0800

I have not heard any complaints about the agenda, so it is being
submitted...  If you need any modifications, see me and I will get you a
timeslot if we can.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Bill Strahm
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 12:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ipoverib] Tentative agenda for IETF meeting

Bill Strahm

Monday	19:30 – 22:00

Tuesday	13:45 - 14:45

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 01:12:23 -0600

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kashyap-ipoib-requirements-01.txt
It is a requirement that the IPoIB modifications must be of a
        nature that does not require changes in IP and higher layer
        protocols. Nor should it mandate requirements on IP stacks to
        implement special user level programs. It is an aim that the
        IPoIB changes be amenable to modularisation and incorporation
        into existing implementations at the same level as other media
        types.
----

Does "IP" imply IPv4 ?....and anything compatible with IPv4 ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/
The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4
http://netfilter.samba.org
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Ipoverib] Tentative agenda for IETF meeting

> Monday 19:30 - 22:00

---

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 23:11:31 -0800 (PST)

IP implies IPv4 and IPv6. Since IPoIB interface is nothing but a new
media type it shouldn't put requirements on the standard IP
implementations. 

Vivek

-- 
Vivek Kashyap
IBM
[email-masked] 
[email-masked] 
503 578 3422 (o)

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 01:33:13 -0600

IPv4 and IPv6 are very different. Also, InfiniBand already
has some elements borrowed from IPv6. This sounds like
you will end up with IPv6 over IPv6.

As for "the standard IP implementations", I assume you mean
the commonly used IPv4 implementations. Linux and FreeBSD
appear to provide representative open-source stacks to consider.

Note that IPv4 has a lot of mileage left in it. IPv5 and IPv7 can
still use the IPv4 version number and pass through the "standard
IP implementations". One would assume that InfiniBand will
provide the same transparent transport.

This may help...

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

---

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 00:21:28 -0800 (PST)

> IPv4 and IPv6 are very different. Also, InfiniBand already

        Yes they are different but that is immaterial in this
        context. 

> you will end up with IPv6 over IPv6.

        No. Even if we had IB follow IPv6 completely it would be
        confusing but it wouldn't be IPv6 over IPv6 but IPv6 over
        IB(whose packets look like IPv6 packets).  

        See the earlier discussions on this list and the various
        drafts that were advertised on this list for a better idea.
	e.g. see draft-kashyap-ipoib-ipv4-and-arp-01.txt

> appear to provide representative open-source stacks to consider.
        I merely meant 'implementations'. Doesn't matter by whom. The
        IP implemenations should be able to incorporate IPoIB in the
        same way as they would incorporate any other media. This is to
        clarify the concern expressed by some that incoporation of
        IPoIB, due to the complexity of IB, may cause rewrites of
        parts of their stack.

> still use the IPv4 version number and pass through the "standard

        ??? IPv5/v7 ....no such thing. If these are private protocols
        they are certainly not being considered. If they can pass for
        IPv4 I am sure you will be able to map your implementations
        like you have done for other media. Anyway that doesn't
        concern this WG. ???

         I do agree that IPv4 has a lot of mileage in it and that we
         are starting with a full tank of IPv6 :).

> provide the same transparent transport.

        Yes, it certainly will. It is another media type. 

Vivek

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 02:47:06 -0600

----- Original Message ----- 
>         like you have done for other media. Anyway that doesn't

Is InfiniBand a "private protocol" ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.IN-ADDR.info
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 02:50:03 -0600

"Even if we had IB follow IPv6 completely it would be
        confusing but it wouldn't be IPv6 over IPv6 but IPv6 over
        IB(whose packets look like IPv6 packets)."
----

Thanks for the reply. It is interesting to note that InfiniBand does
not follow IPv6 completely. It is also interesting to note that
InfiniBand packets just happen to look like IPv6. Based on this,
it would appear that InfiniBand is using IPv6 as a selling point
but not really using IPv6, which makes sense.

You might want to study "The IPv6 Privacy Problem". 
http://www.google.com/search?q=IPV6+Privacy+Problem
IPv8 Addressing solves that problem

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info