Subject: [savi] Draft Minutes - IETF 77 meeting

From: Jean-Michel Combes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:55:00 +0200

Folks,

Here are the draft minutes regarding the last IETF meeting (thanks
again John for the notes).

Please review the minutes and send additions/corrections before April 23.

Thanks in advance.

Christian & JMC.

17:40  Introduction and Administrativa ................ Christian
Vogt, Jean-Michel Combes

Christian: BBF liaison on IPv6 security. BBF wants to avoid dad
traffic between customer premises. Multiple customer premises maybe
within the same broadcast domain.

Alan: BBF is not asking to solve this. BBF wants to solve duplicates
N:1VLAN case.

DAD traffic is addressed in BBF using split horizon.

Christian: what is the problem BBF that asks

Alan: N:1 VLAN scenario duplicates - how to solve that.

Christian: solution with proxy DAD. - will be specified in 6man.

Plan is to sketch a solution and see if BBF approves

Alan:  need to clearly state the problem to be solved

Christian: would like to move forward and respond to BBF.

Status update on Framework doc:

Christian: not much progress since last meeting. B

<explanation of concepts in Framework>

17:50  SAVI for DHCP ............................Jun Bi
(draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-01)

<presentation of updates>

Eric: if hub attached in the network behind a savi switch crashes, the
savi device is not going to do anything. Do we have to deal with hub
state recovery

Jun: this draft deals with savi device recovery.

Marcelo:  first, mechanisms for restoring state is good.

Second, we have 3 flavors of savi - slaac, send, dhcp - it would be
good to have the same terminology.

Questions like how to handle lifetimes, etc. - we may need to unify
these. Provide rationale for this in the framework document. Would
this make sense

Christian: good comment. We should do this for terminology.

Regarding other fine grained things - we should discuss this on a case
by case basis.

Marcelo: Interaction between these aspects need to be considered

Christian: prioritization? Or is it something else

Marcelo: I don't know

Christian: wait for eric's presentation

Eric: go back to binding removal: why is the host removed - local link movement

Jun: if the lifetime is not over, keep the binding - good suggestion

Alan: slide 22. data trigger procedure.

Why is RS not used.

Jun: SAVI device is going to send a DAD to the host on the link

Joel: how to sort out knowable and unknowable conditions -

Christian: question is what is configurable and what is not

Joel: asking the user to recover a connection is not a good idea.

Jun: use a trigger to indicate to the host.

Eric: specific conditions for each kind of network / deployment model
makes it complex.

Christian: explain on ml why this procedure / pros/cons - manual
configs are worth the cost

Marcelo: do not agree

Christian: some issues with auto config will summarized on ml

Woj: clarification how does the savi device know  that the host is using dhcp

Jun: it is configured in the savi device.

18:10  Analysis of Open Issues in SAVI .................... Marcelo
Bagnulo (draft-bagnulo-savi-analysis-02)

Jun: discussion on ml that rate limitation cannot be handled

Eric: need to software process at rate limitation and tend to lose more packets.

Marcelo: dhcp packets will not be lost

Jun: packet loss is not a problem for some cases

Eric: is the rate limit global.

Jean-Michel: optimistic IPv6 address - are they using DAD packets to start

Suresh: DAD in parallel with control packets

Jun: topology change can be handle by NS downstream

Joel: should we depend on an IEEE protocol to handle this?

Frank: clarification - nvram to store state?

Joel: he is proposing not to do this

Jun: for data triggered, any difference in handling between low-end,
high-end switch?

Marcelo: It should be a matter of configuration

Jun: MUST requirement for nvram - vendors will not implement it

Marcelo: qualified should - explain what will break if procedure in
rfc is not followed

Christian: use qualified should

Eric L: we solved this a few meetings back. Triggering a binding is a
strong issue

Eric: lot of legacy switch is operation - servers, laptops etc. ,
non-compliant switches

We need data triggered support.

Christian: to Marcelo - send a summary to ml to start discussion.

18:50  Coexistence of Address Assignment Methods ............Eric
Levy-Abegnoli (draft-levy-abegnoli-savi-plbt-02)

Eric Vyncke: send over human operator - change some priority

Eric L: operator should configure one way

Eric V: if we learn for e.g a binding through SLAAC, and then we
rebind with slaac - will the timing of that rebind have some priority?

Marcelo: ---

Marcelo: any other changes needed in the protocol to implement this?
Concern that some aspects may change

Eric V: not done this yet. Cga is there

Hub: what happens when there is roaming cases - wireless case.

Eric L: no definition yet about when binding is removed

   1. check if user has moved
   2. ---

Christian: fairly detailed analysis - how could this be simplified.
Will these various mech compete?

Eric L: needed to make a good decision

Guang: are these priorities pre-defined

Eric L: configurable, but default should be defined.

Christian: next step will be to see how to add this to the framework doc

19:10  CNGI-CERNET2 SAVI Deployment Update .................... Jun Bi

Christian: good progress. …

19:30  SAVI for Delegated IPv6 Prefixes ..................... John
Kaippallimalil (draft-kaippallimalil-savi-dhcp-pd-01)

Alan: why is this necessary - since in BBF 2 DSLAMs do not talk to
each other, thus there is no interworking.

John: we may need interworking to handle state recovery. Non-volatile
memory is not a good solution

Frank: The solution is to satisfy requirements in WT-177. BBF does not
outline solution details, and this draft addresses the solution.

Woj: Agree with solution, but why is this necessary.

Christian: Post problem statement on savi to ml

-- missed the other on