Minutes
IAB Telechat
14 September 2004
ATTENDING
-
Leslie Daigle — IAB Chair
Harald Alvestrand — IETF/IESG Chair
Rob Austein
Sally Floyd
Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
Mark Handley
Bob Hinden
Geoff Huston
Eric Rescorla
Pete Resnick
Jonathan Rosenberg
Bert Wijnen — Liaison from the IESG
Joyce Reynolds — Liaison from the RFC Editor
Lynn St. Amour — Liaison from ISOC
APOLOGIES
Bernard Aboba
Patrik Faltstrom
Vern Paxson — IRTF Chair
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS
-
Telechat, Tuesday, 12 October 2004, 2100 UTC
AGENDA
- Roll call, Agenda Bash and Previous Minutes
- Review of Action Items
- Review of Documents
- IAB Liaison Reports
- Updates from IETF Liaisons
- IRTF Chair – discussion on process/a>
- IAB Liaison to the IETF Nominations Committee
- IPv6 ad hoc advisory group progress
- Other Regular Business
NOTES
-
Roll call, Agenda Bash and Previous Minutes
Minutes of the IAB meeting at IETF 60 were approved.
-
Review of Action Items
-
Review of Documents
-
IAB Liaison Reports
-
IESG has agreed to publish the telechat agendas in advance of the meeting, to indicate in advance which documents are on the IESG agenda. (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html)
-
Aaron Falk is now the RFC-Editor “backup liaison” person to the IESG.
-
The IRTF chair is stepping down at the Washington DC IETF meeting. The IAB is requested to appoint a successor prior to the meeting to enable a smooth transition.
-
RFC Editor contract – at the request of the IAB and IETF chairs, the chairs and ISOC’s CEO, are in the process of negotiating a one year extension of the RFC Editor contract (2005 calendar year).
IESG
Rob Austein, Bert Wijnen:RFC Editor
Joyce Reynolds:-
No items to report
IRTF
Vern Paxson:ISOC
Lynn St Amour: -
-
Updates from IETF Liaisons
-
Current ICANN activities include consideration of Whois information, the .net registry, and further consideration of sponsored TLD applications.
-
If there are IAB concerns or issues that the IAB wishes to raise with respect to these, or other ICANN activities please let me know.
-
AAAA IPv6 glue records have now been added to the root zone
-
A detailed liaison report has been filed with the IAB.
ICANN – Liaison to the Board
John Klensin:RSSAC
Rob Austein:IEEE 802
Bernard Aboba -
-
IRTF Chair
The IAB considered the process to be used in appointing a chair of the IRTF. Further consideration of the process in relation to the role of the IRTF will be continued by email discussion.
-
Update on outstanding IANA requests
The IAB was briefed on the current status of IAB requests to the IANA. IAB concerns in this matter will be pass to ICANN.
-
IPv6 ad hoc advisory group progress
A progress report submitted to the IAB is attached.
-
Other Regular Business
Response to ICANN request relating to any IAB coment regarding the .net registry function
[Leslie Daigle and Geoff Huston recused themselves from IAB consideration of this item due to potential conflict of interest considerations]
The IAB will pass a public response to ICANN, referring to existing IETF documents and current and poteential DNS-related Working Group activities relating to operation of top level domains.
Attachment
IAB IPv6 Advisory Group Progress Report
-
clarifying the documentation (in RFCs) about how the IETF wants IANA to manage the IPv6 space. e.g., IANA allocation sizes to RIRs:
-
HD ratio. Some questions are being raised as to whether the HD ratio is really the proper metric for address utilization and allocation. Question: Is the current HD ratio model (and policies based on them) still the best model, or should we be considering adjustments?
-
IANA allocation page cleanup (needs update to reflect reality, still uses TLA field which has been deprecated in RFC 3513, consistent and clear terminology for allocation state)
-
ip6.int deprecation. Now that we have ip6.arpa, can we stop using ip6.int? RIRs are currently populating it, and would like to stop doing so.
Status: we believe an ID needs to be published and reviewed by the community, then pushed through the system as, e.g., a BCP. Key issue is deciding a date for when deprecating ip6.int makes sense, based on what current implementations actually do.
-
We believe the IETF has a role to play in stewardship of the IPv6 address space. While it is clearly not appropriate for the IETF to micro-manage the IANA/RIR process, the IETF has a long-term interest in seeing that the IPv6 address space is managed prudently, and that a proper balance between aggregation and address conservation is achieved, as envisioned by the IPv6 architecture. In particular, the emphasis on aggregation should be significantly more pronounced in IPv6 than it is (or has been) for IPv4.
-
IANA appears to be using obsoleted instructions and thinking. See
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments. The TLA concept was obsoleted by RFC 3587 (there is no mention of this RFC on the web site). We will work on cleaning this up. -
IANA continues to assign /23s to RIRs (i.e., as recently as September, 2004). This is clearly too small a size, and reflects a thinking that pre-dates both RFC 3177, and the global IPv6 policy that the RIRs are currently using. For long-term support of aggregation, it is important that ISPs be allocated sufficiently large chunks, plus, RIRs must “hold back” sufficient space “in reserve” to allow an ISP’s allocation to grow in the future in such a way that its existing allocation can be expanded into a shorter prefix, rather than requiring that a new, separate allocation be made (i.e., fragementation of the address space).
An important goal for IPv6 is to support good aggregation over long time periods (e.g., 10-20 years and beyond), so that as an ISP grows, it continues to be able to use a single prefix to aggregate all of its customers.
We are currently studying what a more appropriate IANA-RIR allocation size is; initial discussions have suggested something in the range of /12-/16 being appropriate.
-
The topic of IANA->RIR allocation sizes is being actively discussed within the RIR community. The expectation/plan is that each RIR will discuss the issue within its community with the eventual goal of having a single global policy that can be submitted to ICANN through the ASO. Note: it goes without saying that any such eventual recommendation should be in sync with the IETF/IAB view, so it is important that we follow/engage in these discussions as they happen.
References:
RIPE 49, Manchester, 20-24 September:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6.htmlARIN XIV, Reston, 20-22 Oct:
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/2758.htmlLACNIC VII, San Jose (Costa Rica), 26-28 Oct
http://lacnic.net/en/meetings.htmlAPNIC 19, Kyoto, 22-25 Feb 2005
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/19-
note: at the just-concluded Fiji meeting, APNIC adopted the following:
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-005-v004.html -
The HD Ratio is currently used to determine when an ISP has sufficiently used up a current allocation and is eligble for more address space from an RIR. (Specifically, an HD ratio of 0.8 is the current threshold.)
At present, there is no formally defined/accepted definition of when an RIR has sufficiently “used up” an allocation it has received from IANA and becomes eligible to get more. This is a critically important topic, and the same HD ratio target is not appropriate for this. Indeed, it is unclear that the HD ratio is even an appropriate metric in this context. The issue is that in order to ensure good aggregation in the long term, RIRs must also leave their space “underutilized” or “sparsely allocated”, in order to ensure that as an ISP grows, it can get adjacent address space to its already allocated block. This emphasis on aggregation in IPv6 contrasts with the current practice in IPv4, where emphasis is weighted more heavily on address conservation.
Further work/discussions are needed to better understand what would be good/acceptable policies/practices here. Geoff has been doing some modeling/simulation work in this space, based on data from actual IPv4 customer allocation history.
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004
From: Thomas Narten
To: Leslie Daigle
The following is a status update from the IAB ad-hoc committee that is looking at IPv6 addressing issues.
First, the following is what we believe our work items are.
To date, we’ve had email exchanges and one conference call. Some early thinking (not a formal recommendation) at this point, includes:
IAB ACTIONS and DOCUMENTS
- IDN
-
Geoff Huston
- Compile a list of questions to be addressed in the context of a workshop
- Leslie, Patrik and John Klensin to review
[Feb-03]
current
Status: Coordinate preparatory work for a possible IAB ‘virtual’ workshop on IDN and related matters - OMA Liaison
-
Geoff Huston
- Nomination of IETF liaison to OMA: Dean Willis
- Publish liaison document as IAB informational RFC
[Sep-03]
closed
Status: IAB has approved liaison with OMA - ID / Locator Architectural Consideration
-
Geoff Huston
- Refer to Internet Identities item (under Documents)
[Jan-04]
closed
Status: Multi6 is working in the context of a small design team to refine wedge layer 3.5 analysis and define requires functions and components. There are architectural implications of this approach that may merit IAB study - IAB Messaging Workshop
-
Pete Resnick
- Archive of workshop material to be created
[Apr-04]
current
Status: October 6 / 7, San Francisco. Discussion topics assigned to participants, mailing list discussion underway, agenda to be prepared - *RP protocol parameter value
-
Rob Austein, Bert Wijnen
- No further action to be taken
- Noted that it would be useful to define a general support mechanism for the process of public requests for assignment and registration of protocol parameter values, including tracking of such request transactions.
[Apr-04]
closed
Status: Followup with IANA and IESG has not revealed any breakdown of the protocol parameter registration process in this instance - IPv6 Policies
-
IPv6 Advisory Committee
- ip6.int, hd-ratio and IANA allocation unit
- Progress report noted by the IAB
[May-04]
current
Status: Passed a set of current IPv6 issues to the ad-hoc IAB advisory committee on IPv6 addressing issues. - Teredo Review
-
Jonathan Rosenberg
[Sep-03]
current
Status: Review the IAB Considerations section of Teredo specification - A survey of Authentication Mechanisms
draft-iab-auth-mech-03.txt-
Eric Rescorla
- (current) Revise as per comments from IETF call
- (next) RFC Submission
- (next) still revising
[Apr-02]
current
Status: Revision - Internationalized Resource Identifiers
draft-iab-char-rep-01.txt-
Leslie Daigle
- (current) Part of IDN workshop action
[Nov-02]
held
Status: Hold - Secure Autoconfiguration in IPv6
-
Bernard Aboba
- (current) Propose to rework current summary as a framework description. Note original problem statement of the range of choices of discovery mechanisms.
- (next) IAB Review: Rob (done), Bob, Patrik (done)
- (next) publish as IAB I-D by end September
[Mar-03]
current
Status: IAB Review - Protocol Models
draft-iab-model-01.txt-
Eric Rescorla
- (current) IAB Review: Sally (done)
- (next) Incorporate review comments and publish 02 version
- (next) IETF Call for Input
[May-03]
current
Status: Revision - Internet Identities
draft-iab-identities-01.txt-
Patrik Faltstrom, Geoff Huston
- (current) Incorporate review comments. Reflect considerations of inter-relations of identities at different layers and impacts of making changes based on a single layer’s requirements. That revision will, in turn, reflect on the IP/locator split.
[Jul-03]
current
Status: Revision - DOS Attacks
draft-iab-dos-01.txt-
Mark Handley
- (current) Incorporate review comments
[Sep-03]
current
Status: Revision - Liaison Management
draft-iab-liaison-mgmt-02.txt-
Leslie Daigle
- (current) IETF Call for Input (with draft-baker-liaison-statements-02)
[Nov-03]
current
Status: IETF Call for Input - Untangling Activeware
-
Jonathan Rosenberg
- (current) IAB consideration on the topic of the interaction of NATs, ALGs, Firewals, Application frameworks and IPv6 transition mechanisms
- (next) Consider ways of devolving this in a manner that allows productive study of the interactions and inter-dependencies at play here
- (next) Draft an abstract and outlines for further IAB review
[Apr-04]
current
Status: Revision - Top Level Domain Issues
-
Jonathan Rosenberg
- (current) IAB Review: Bernard, Geoff
- (next) Draft publication following IAB clearance
[May-04]
current
Status: Drafting - Use of DNS RRs in Mail Applications
-
Patrik Faltstrom, Rob Austein
- (current) draft-ymbk-dns-choices to be resubmitted as IAB draft
- (next) Submit a revision to this document as an IAB draft by end September
[Jun-04]
current
Status: Drafting - Architectural Implications of Link Layer Indications
-
Bernard Aboba
- (current) IAB Review: Jonathan, Sally (done – should redo after tech chat)
[Jun-04]
current
Status: Drafting - OMA Liaison Agreement
draft-iab-oma-liaison-00.txt-
Geoff Huston
- (current) Submitted to RFC editor 8-Sep
[Sep-04]
current
Status: RFC Editor
Actions
Documents
These minutes were prepared by Geoff Huston; comments should be sent to iab-execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/
The IAB Web page is at http://www.iab.org