* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Intarea Status Pages

Internet Area Working Group (Active WG)
Int Area: Éric Vyncke, Erik Kline | 2010-Mar-23 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-112 intarea minutes


Minutes

minutes-112-intarea-00 minutes



          IntArea WG Agenda
          
          IETF 112 - Virtual
          Tuesday, November 09, 2021
          
          12:00-14:00 Tuesday Session I (UTC)
          
          Chairs:
          Juan Carlos Zuniga (SIGFOX)
          Wassim Haddad (Ericsson)
          
          Scribe: Luigi Ianone (after the meeting)
          
          
          1. Agenda Bashing, WG & Document Status Updates (Chairs)
             5 minutes
          
          2. Unicast Use of the Lowest Address in an IPv4 Subnet, Seth David Schoen
             8 minutes
             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-lowest-address/
          
          
          3. Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 240/4, Seth David Schoen
             7 minutes
             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/
          
             [Questions concern both of the above documents]
          
              Toerless Eckert: Would be usefull to provide use cases where private
              use of 240/4 addresses is not sufficient and going for IPv6 would
              not be a good solution.
          
              Seth David Schoen: Private use shows that is feasable to use
              them. Some implementors would like to see an official Internet
              standard before taking any action. There is still a strong demand of
              IPv4 addresses because some people do not want IPv6 only addresses
              because they would not be reachable from the IPv4 Internet, which
              is still the majority.
          
              Ted Lemon: You explained the how but the the why. If we use this
              space should it be allocated for private use or public use? And
              assuming this is a good idea why should the IETF endorse it?
          
              Seth David Schoen: Because the implementation would not
              change, whether the address is private or public, we think
              that the implementation can go ahead without solving the policy
              question. People using the addresses may know at some point what
              would be the right policy. This does not change the official IETF
              policy of IPv6 adoption. But no other entity has a word on how to
              use these addresses.
          
              Bob Hinden: Not sure about the value of the work. I operate IPv4
              networks using etheregenous equipements and start to deploy such a
              solution would be an operational nightmare. I have sufficient IPv4
              addresses because I use private addresses.
          
          
          4. Challenging Scenarios and Problems in Internet Addressing, Yihao Jia
             8 minutes
             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing/
          
          
          5. Gap analysis in Internet Addressing, Yihao, Jia
             7 minutes
             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-internet-addressing-gap-analysis/
          
          
             [No Specific question on the last two documents]
          
          6. Short Hierarchical IP Addresses at Edge Networks, Haoyu Song
             15 mins
             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ship-edge/
          
              Stuart Cheshire: Not clear the benefits that this mechanism
              provides.
          
              Dave Thaler: Best place for this discussion is 6lo WG.
          
              Ted Lemon: Authors should look a the Thread Routing Protocol that
              looks very similar.
          
          7. Source Address Validation: Use Cases and Gap Analysis, Dan Li /
          Lancheng Qin
             15 minutes
             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-sav-gap-analysis/
          
             > This work should probably be continued and presented in the OPSEC WG
             > [name=Éric Vyncke]
          
              Jen Linkova: Agrees to give slot to this work in next OPSEC WG
              Meeting.
          
          8. Carrier Grade Minimalist Multicast (CGM2) using Bit Index Explicit
          Replication (BIER) with Recursive BitString
             Structure (RBS) Addresses / Toerless Eckert
             10 minutes
             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs/
          
              Dave Thaler: This multicast solution let routers encapsulate to a
              set of addresses. How to know these addresses?
          
              Toerless Eckert: This is deployed in the BIER PE routers that do a
              mapping between BIER addresses and IP multicast. This let application
              to choose every destination individually instead of dealing with
              multicast groups.
          
          
          9. Native Minimal Protocols with Flexibility at Edge Networks / Sheng
          Jiang
             10 minutes
             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-intarea-nmp-edge/
          
             Dave Thaler: Best place for this discussion is 6lo WG.
          
          10. P802.1CQ, Roger Marks
             10 minutes
          
                Toerless Eckert: How to deal with partitions and merges? How to
                ensure that the applications behave correctly.
          
              Roger Marks: We discuss it in the draft that we will circulate soon
              (ETA one month or two).
          
             > I am happy to see this IEEE work being presented at one IETF WG
             meeting. Thank you.
             > >[name=Éric Vyncke]
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/intarea/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -