Subject: Meeting minutes for RTGWG at IETF-67 (thanks to Russ White)

From: "Bruno Rijsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:46:25 -0500

Russ White was kind enough to take minutes at the RTGWG meeting at IETF-67. 

The slides for the presentations are posted at the meeting materials website (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=67)

RTWG

Agenda Bashing

John Introduced

Goals and milestones revision, John Scudder
 Stewart Bryant: Should we include the loop free as a distinct goal
 John: Sounds fine, if no other comments, we'll publish to the list
 for comments

GTSM to Standards Track, Dave Myer
 Dave: Would you use multihop?
 Ted: We could
 Dave: You could engineer from many more places
 Ted: You still have the requirements to do loopback peering
 John: You can do loopback to loopback
 Dave: That's not the same thing as multihop, multihop is engineered
 less than 255
 Ted: And I can see that, but it would be nice to have with
 multiple paths between attached peers. Probably half of our peers
 have multiple paths, some of which might be multiple hops.
 Chandra: We ahve a shipping version with multipath, and customers
 have asked us to keep it in there
 Dave: Okay, that's good feedback. We couldn't analyze this in any way
 to convince ourselves that the security properties of this are
 deterministic.
 Alex: What is the output of this discussion? Are you going to add
 multihop?
 Dave: We need to go back and look at it, and discuss it more.
 John: Multihop is still in there, just as an appendix, so you're
 still compliant.
 Alex: The document needs to be clearer as to the security properties
 of multihop.
 Chandra: I'm not certain of the point of multihop? You can set the
 TTL to anything, so it doesn't matter.
 Dave: If you use multihop, and you accept packets within that trust
 radius, you don't know much about where that packet came from. It's a
 lot weaker thing than TTL==255 on a connected segment.
 Ted: I dont' understand how something so simple has taken so long to
 get through. Moving it or removing it, and agreeing to do it later.
 Dave: Sense of the room, removing multihop to the appendix, as
 non-normative, would this be a good way forward?
 Sense of the room: Yes

Summary of Design Team Meeting for IPFRR/microloop, Mike Shand
 No comments from the mic
 oFIB:  Show of hands, lots of support
 Notvia: Show of hands, lots of support

oFIB, Francios
 Alex: How do you identify the changes you signal in the completion
 messages?
 Stewart: Was Alex talking about this new stuff, or the main draft?
 Francios: The length of the message and the description of the state
 change.
 Alex: I would like to a description in a more algorithmic way.
 Francios; Okay.

Loop Free Framework
 Stewart: Can we take a sense of the room on progressing the loop free
 framework doc to informational as a WG doc?
 Sense of the room: Unanimous amoung those who have actually read it.

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