Internet Area Director(s): o Stev Knowles: stev@ftp.com o Dave Piscitello: dave@mail.bellcore.com Area Summary reported by Stev Knowles/FTP Software and Dave Piscitello/Bellcore Working groups in the Internet Area are actively involved in the development of Internet standards for: o IP and multi-protocol operation over emerging wide area technologies (ATM, SMDS, Frame Relay) and point-to-point technologies (including narrowband ISDN). o Development of a ``next generation'' IP; i.e., a replacement protocol and addressing/routing architecture for IPv4. o Miscellaneous (Network Address Translation, Stream Technology 2). The following BOFs and working groups in the Internet Area met during the Amsterdam IETF: o Extensions to OSI for use in the Internet BOF (OSIEXTND) o Internet Stream Protocol V2 BOF (ST2) o IPng Decision Process BOF (IPDECIDE) o Network Address Translators BOF (NAT) o IP Over Asynchronous Transfer Mode Working Group (ATM) o IP Over Large Public Data Networks Working Group (IPLPDN) o P. Internet Protocol Working Group (PIP) o Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group (PPPEXT) o Simple Internet Protocol Working Group (SIP) o TCP/UDP Over CLNP-Addressed Networks Working Group (TUBA) o TP/IX Working Group (TPIX) The IPLPDN and PPPEXT Working Groups met individually as well as jointly. Internet Stream Protocol V2 BOF (ST2) The ST2 BOF resulted in two decisions. The first was that a working group should be formed to update the existing ST-II specification (RFC 1190). The main motivation was to correct errors in the 1 specification and to make it easier to implement ST-II in a manner which is likely to be interoperable with other ST-II implementations. The second decision was that there was no clear direction on future standards track status for ST-II. A mailing list will be started in the next week to discuss a proposed charter. IPng Decision Process BOF (IPDECIDE) About 200 people attended, plus about 100 MBONE auditors. Discussion focussed on the decision process for IPng rather than on technical criteria or the proposals. A clear consensus did not emerge, but constant themes in the discussion included these: 1. Vendors and operators look to the IETF to reach a clear decision. 2. It would be bad to offer the market an ambiguous decision. 3. The market will resist any IPng that does not just look like a new release of IP. 4. It is unclear how to prove that any proposal truly scales to a billion nodes. 5. Timescales for IPv4 address depletion and for IPng deployment are not well understood. 6. The IESG needs to figure out how to pursue the decision process and avoid wasted effort on competing proposals. Network Address Translators BOF (NAT) Kjeld Borch Egevang's NAT implementation is described in the NAT Internet-Draft. The scheme in that draft is not dynamic in that the addresses used for translation are statically assigned to single hosts for long periods of time. It is possible, however, to re-assign them to other hosts. Another aspect of the scheme described is that the addresses on the backbone side of the translator must be globally unique. It was pointed out that other NAT schemes do not have these characteristics (for instance, one proposed by Van Jacobson). It was generally felt that it would be useful to the IP community to have more knowledge of the pitfalls of NAT. This is particularly true because anybody can install a NAT box independent of anybody else, and in the absence of any NAT standard. IP Over Asynchronous Transfer Mode Working Group (ATM) The first session began with an announcement by Bob Hinden that Mark Laubach will be the new ATM chair. An agenda was presented and agreed upon for the three days. Steve Willis presented and led a review of recent ATM Forum activities. Their User Network Interface (UNI) Specification Version 3.0 document should be ratified in August. Juha 2 Heinanen presented an overview of the European ATM pilot project. Joel Halpern presented the topic of ``routing IP over the switched virtual cloud.'' He volunteered to write a proposal. Consensus is that ATM will host the proposal but actual work will be moved to another working group that will deal with routing over large public networks. A general discussion was held to collect comments on Ran Atkinson's MTU draft document. Ran was not present at this meeting. In the last half hour was spent on Mark Laubach's Classical IP and ARP Over ATM draft and discussion and consensus building continued over the next two meetings. The second session opened with a discussion of the time-table of working group activities over the next half year. In order to fast-track this document, technical review and final consensus on the draft will be collected via email. Unfortunately, discussion of the classical draft and related issues took up most of the time of the working group. On the last day, Juha was given twenty minutes to lead the discussion of his NBMA draft. Clearly this was not enough time as much discussion was generated. Juha is getting together with Joel Halpern to work on the issues raised in the discussion. IP Over Large Public Data Networks Working Group (IPLPDN) IPLPDN met individually and with the PPPEXT Working Group and reached the following decisions: o A request will be made to advance RFC 1356, ``Multiprotocol over X.25'' from Proposed to Draft Standard. o The default encapsulation for circuit switched services will be PPP. o Concensus was reached for the PPP over X.25, ISDN, and Frame Relay documents. They will be updated in the coming weeks. o Progress was made on the definition of multilink transfer. The IPLPDN group met for the last time, but the mailing list will remain for unfinished business. Remaining topics will go to ATM, PPPEXT, and newly created working groups. P. Internet Protocol Working Group (PIP) A specification overview was presented at the meeting. The specification of forwarding has remained unchanged for the past three months. The DNS architecture to support PIP has been revised. The PIP 3 identifier structure has been revised. IDRP routing support for PIP has revisions in progress. The host operations specifications has been revised. The PIP Control Message Protocol is new, and is currently incomplete. The PIP transition specification is new. Missing from the specification is a MIB definition. Routing still requires further definition. Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group (PPPEXT) o RFC 1171 should be Historical. When updated, the current PPP LCP draft should go to Draft Standard. o The HDLC Framing draft is a direct extraction from the older PPP LCP document, and is ready for elevation to Draft Standard. o The PPP LCP Extensions draft is recommended for consideration as a Proposed Standard. o The PPP requirements document will be reorganized and posted as an Informational RFC. o A separate breakout meeting was held for PPP Compression, and the slides from the two presentations by Dave Rand and Dave Langley are included with the minutes. They contain a lot of information. Five candidate protocols are under active consideration. Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group (PPPEXT) and IP Over Large Public Data Networks Working Group (IPLPDN) o The question was seriously discussed whether a default way to send IP over circuit switched services such as ISDN B channel is needed. It was observed that the question is malformed; a default way to send IP over a V.35 or V.11 interface, for example, is not needed. A way to speak to a peer system at the data link layer, which might be a Frame Relay or X.25 switch, or a peer host or router is needed. o Various discussion were held about configuring multi-link PPP groups. Discussions were also held about adding, removing, and controlling seperate lines in a multilink group. o An applicability statement for PPP over Frame Relay is needed. o An applicability statement for PPP over X.25 in view of RFCs 877 and 1356 is needed. o Bill Simpson presented his paper on PPP over ISDN. PPP must have the same default MRU (and any other defaults) on ISDN as in other environments. Keith Sklower will publish his IPLPDN document, 4 ``Determination of Encapsulation of Multi-Protocol Datagrams in Circuit Switched Environment,'' and Bill indicated that he would like to copy some of the technical material from them into this document. It was decided that he would reference Keiths document. o Keith and Bill will merge their documents. The resulting document should be separate from the PPP over foo documents, as it is desired to be placed on the standards track, and the PPP over foo documents may not be placed on that track. Simple Internet Protocol Working Group (SIP) The group reviewed recent work on system discovery, auto configuration, SIP RIP and SIP DNS. Translation issues raised by Ross Callon were also reviewed. Gary Malkin presented comments received from Garcia Luna Aceves (JJ) on SIP RIP. Bill Simpson led the discussion on the system discovery draft. Bob Gilligan presented a set of ``preliminary ideas'' that he proposed to the mailing list on auto configuration. TCP/UDP Over CLNP-Addressed Networks Working Group (TUBA) Marcel Wiget (Switch) reported on the RARE CLNS Pilot. Applications tested included: X.400, X.500, FTAM, DECnet, VT, TUBA, OSI Ping, traceroute, etc. Current activities include a task force for CLNS routing coordination. A spirited discussion was held on the use of IS-IS for routing the global CLNS network. TP/IX Working Group Working Group (TPIX) The TP/IX Working Group conducted its first meeting. There were two sessions. Two new Internet-Drafts were presented in the first session, ``Initial AD Assignment Plan'' and ``Transit Policy Routing in TP/IX.'' In the second session, the TCP large window performance options and a new experimental TCP record marking option, both documented in the new TCP options draft, were discussed. All items on the agenda were covered by the working group. The status of TP/IX and RAP protocols was reported, and a lot of questions were answered concerning the transition from IPv4 to TP/IX. 5