MINUTES FOR JANUARY 10, 1995 IAB TELECONFERENCE
Mike St. Johns
Teleconference Tuesday February 7, 10-12 EST
- Elise Gerich: Update document on globally unique addresses.
- Robert Elz: Respond to comments on the “globally unique addresses” document.
- Lixia Zhang: Generate progress on geographic addressing by creating a design team (it might include Steve Deering, Paul Francis, Christian, Yakov).
- Yakov Rekhter: Post routing architecture document as an ID from the IAB after asking for final input from the IAB for one week.
- Mike St. Johns: Talk to Jon Postel re. rewording of the letter from the IAB to the trustees re. ownership of the address space.
- Elise Gerich: Get RFC 1466 revised and reviewed by the appropriate people.
- Christian Huitema: Convince someone to chair a BOF at the next IETF on measurement of Internet service.
- Abel Weinrib: Ask John Curran to let new IAB members know of Friday meeting.
- All: Provide feedback to Yakov on his paper about “routing architecture for a multi-provider, international internet.”
- Dave Sincoskie: Call Tony Rutkowski to offer him ownership of the Internet usage survey.
- Christian Huitema: Get final text of liaison document from Stev Knowles and publish it.
- Dave Sincoskie: Follow up on standardizing S/key within the IETF.
- Jon Postel (IANA): Report on problems with the current DNS registry process and possible solutions.
- Lixia Zhang, Yakov Rekhter and Phill Gross: Write discussion paper on the impact of commercialization on the Internet.
- Christian Huitema: Write discussion paper on the integration of services and its impact on usage and models of usage.
- Yakov Rekhter: Revise RFC 1560.
- Christian Huitema and Steve Crocker: prepare a brief note outlining follow-up to security retreat.
NEW ACTION ITEMS:
OLD ACTION ITEMS:
- review the comments received so far on 1597– (Elise’s document).
Do we have to change one iota? When is the planned publication date?
- review Yakov’s “routing architecture.”
Do we believe that there is an alternative to provider addressing? What is the relation with address ownership and address assignment.
Elise’s document on “globally unique addresses are good” has been presented to the community for comment, and have received comments primarily from the NICs (not surprisingly, given that they are the people who have to implement address assignment).
It was suggested that the architectural focus of the document would be clearer if the title were changed to “There is no substitute for unique addresses.” Also, perhaps the document should be less verbose, stating simply that anyone is entitled to get public address space in spite of the existence of the private address space defined by RFC 1597. After all, anyone can get a public address, perhaps by going to different registry or service provider. We don’t mandate that people have to go to a single registry for their addresses; of course, doing so may help address aggregation, so it is strongly encouraged.
Furthermore, the document should include the caveat that 1466 needs to be updated. The IPv4 address space is a scarce resource, and policies need to be defined for how to conserve it. Some NICS are more stringent about assigning addresses than others.
There appears to be a lot of user demand for globally unique addresses that are owned forever. (Providers who charge more for unique addresses find people want them.) The fundamental question is the value of such addresses vs. the price. There may exist technology that will allow this, but it is still an open question.
It was felt that if we don’t forcefully advocate end-user owned globally unique addresses, they will probably go away. Some IAB members believe that we are on a slippery slope towards provider-based addressing, and that we should defend the availability of site-owned unique addresses.
Geographic addressing might well support globally unique addresses more easily than provider-based addressing for IPv6, but this idea has not been worked out in any detail. It would be good if people interested in this approach made it more concrete. It seems to require many NAP-like interconnect points between providers.
- what is the status of our “letter to the trustees?”
(Letter re. who owns the address space.)
It was argued that the letter should avoid statements of “ownership” of the address space. Instead, have the ISOC state that they endorse a particular management plan for the address space, and don’t deal with issues of abandonment at all. Also, the word “custodian” might be better than “owner.”
Really, we want the IANA to control the address space, which then allocates them according to guidance from the IAB and the IETF. The issue is who has the ultimate responsibility when someone does not like what the IANA does.
A proposal is to give ownership to ISOC at the same time that it delegates addresses, thus removing any bottlenecks. However, this still does not answer the question of who owns and controls the reserve space.
- prepare 1466++.
Should we send a letter to the IEPG? Should there be a recommendation of the IAB? Should there be a public review?
Elise volunteers to take leadership for revising 1466 and getting it reviewed by the appropriate people. Also, she will request input from the upcoming operators conference.
1- Review of the agenda
2- Delegation of addresses:
3- IAB workshop on measurements of Internet service.
- Present current status.
Christian sent out mail. Almost everyone said that this is a hard problem and will take a while. They believe that there should be an IETF working group to address this important problem.
Thus, the next step will be formation of an IETF BOF rather than holding a workshop.
4 – Review of action items.
5 – Future meetings.
Teleconference Tuesday February 7, 10-12 EST
Meeting of old IAB Sunday before Danvers IETF.
Joint meeting of new IAB with new IESG on Friday of Danvers meeting (4/7/95).
These minutes were prepared by Abel Weinrib, AWeinrib@ibeam.intel.com. An online copy of these and other minutes are available in the directory http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins.