Subject: [magma] MAGMA Minutes for IETF 57

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:05:48 -0700

All,

Here are the minutes from the meeting (after a small bit of editing
from myself). Please submit clarifications, comments, or corrections
to Brian and myself by Friday (July 25). Thanks to Marshall for taking
the minutes.

thanks
Isidor

------- Forwarded Message

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:09:30 -0400
From:  "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
To:  Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>,
            Isidor Kouvelas 
     <[email-masked]>
Subject:  MAGMA Minutes

Brian, Isidor - Please read. As I said before, I had trouble hearing
and keeping up with some of the fast paced discussioned.

- ----------------

Minutes for IETF 57 MAGMA Working Group meeting - Brian Haberman
<[email-masked]> and Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
presiding

There is a new version of the MLDv2 draft. The revised draft (-07) is
awating AD followup. There are also implementations available for
Linux.

Toerless Eckert - On the router side we (Cisco) have it too.
Isidor - Cisco also has a full host side implementation.

Presenter - We also have an implementation and would like to do
interoperability testing.

Brian - As a work item for myself I will talk to the IPv6 Node
Requirements author about including MLDv2 in the Node Requirements.

The IGMP/MLD Proxy draft has been resubmitted following AD comments.

The SSM option for Multicast Router Discover has gone to last call but
may be affected by more general issues, such as whether or not there
should be an admin-scoped SSM address range and whether it (the SSM
range) should be variable.

The MSF API draft has passed working group last call.

Dave Thaler - To my knowledge, everything that has been brought up has
been addressed.
Brian - So we should be able to go to the IESG ?
Dave - Yes

The IGMPv3.MLDv2 draft is awaiting revisions to go to last call.

Isidor Kouvelas - MSNIP Update

The big issue is the support for ad hoc networks - i.e., networks
which have no routers.

Ad-hoc support requirement is that there is no modificiation in code
in existing receivers. Source control can only happen withing 232/8

Toerless Eckert - Why can't you configure a different range?

Isidor - Well you can, and that's one of the things that we have to
address.

In regard to the state issue (state being kept by source hosts as a
result of explicit tracking of (local) recevers) there was some
discussion on the mailing list and the consensus seemed to be that
this was not a big deal.

For robustness purposes there has to be a dummy querier, and the dummy
querier has to implement pretty much the full router side IGMPv3
protocol. Full router side requierment is because if a real router
shows up, they could loose the Querier election and then things will
break.

Dave Thaler - I think that it would be OK to run without keeping any
state except for state on your own broadcasts.

Dave Thaler - As far as I know, this protocal is as scalable as the
underlying IGMPv3 protocols.

Toerless - IGMP is prone to attacks anyway

Dave Thaler - We sort of messed up as, once the document went to
working group last call, we discovered that we had missed this point.

Isidore. A new dummy bit is needed to distinguish dummy from real
queriers.  Senders have to detect that they are on an ad-hoc link and
join the ALL_IGMPv3_Routers group. Potential senders need to directly
process these reports.

Pekka - I think it is interesting the huge amount of complexity that
is being added to account for this special case. I think that the
working group needs to consider carefully the need for this.

Isadore - The complexity is significant.

Dave Thaler - But then you need to know whether you are on an ad hoc
network.

This should have been part of the requirements document, but this
document was never completed.

Brian Haberman - The basic question for the Group is where do we want
to go with this?  I will have Isidor send a note to the mailing list.

IGMPv3 - MLDv2 MIB - now has separate tables for host and router. Is
this what people want?

Dave Thaler - Yes, Except that the source list table also needs to be
split, and there is some useless information, such as for MLDv1 hosts.

I saw that it allows you to disable MLD snooping, which should not be
allowed.

Also, right now it only allows you to manage a MLDv1 or IGMPv2 host.
That should be changed.

------- End of Forwarded Message

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

---

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:30:51 -0700

> working group last call, we discovered that we had missed this point.

Actually that's not quite what I said/meant.  Change to:
The WG messed up by not documenting the requirements in the first place,
when they were originally discussed.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Isidor Kouvelas
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 7:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [magma] MAGMA Minutes for IETF 57
> 
> 
> All,
>

---

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:30:51 -0700

-Dave