CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Philip Almquist/Consultant RREQ Minutes The Router Requirements Working Group held extensive meetings in Atlanta in an attempt to resolve the remaining outstanding issues. We were mostly very successful: although a considerable number of loose ends remain, we expect that they can be handled on the mailing list (and, if necessary, in a videoconference). Our goal is to have a final version of the document available in October to be formally submitted to the standards process at the November IETF meeting. The meetings focused on three activities: 1. Review of the Router Requirements draft (Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday). 2. Discussion of the theoretical basis of routing in border routers (Tuesday and Wednesday). 3. Review of a draft document describing IP type of service (Tuesday). Some visitors from the IPLPDN Working Group asked us to consider the changes to the IP routing architecture that they are considering, but we did not have time to hold the extensive discussion which would have been necessary to reach consensus on that issue. Each is described in more detail below. The Chair would like to thank Frank Solensky for recording the decisions reached during the meeting. Review of Router Requirements Draft The entire document was reviewed in detail. This process was considerably less contentious than at many previous meetings, since the most divisive issues had previously been resolved. Some of the issues included: o The relationship between our document and the Host Requirements, and the extent to which our document ought to replicate material found in the Host Requirements. o When (if ever) a router should believe ICMP Redirects. o Metrics for static routes. o Whether SNMP may be implemented via a proxy agent. o The security of in-band configuration mechanisms. o The allowability of IP multicast addresses in source routes. o What still needs to be done to complete the document. 1 In regard to the first issue, we concluded that overlap is generally not desirable, and that we should work to eliminate it. The resolution of the other issues should be obvious from the next version of the draft. Theory of Border Routers The Working Group continued its discussion from previous meetings of how a router which is in multiple routing domains can choose from among routes to the same destination learned from different routing protocols (``route believability'') and how can it pass routing information between multiple routing domains (``route leaking''). Our discussion of these difficult topics was guided by several papers by Working Group members (all available as Internet Drafts): ``Ruminations on the Next Hop'' and ``Ruminations on Route Leaking'', both by Philip Almquist, and ``Some Thoughts on Multi-Domain Routing'' by Ross Callon. The Working Group concluded that the discussion in the papers was generally correct. However, two issues were raised concerning the first paper: 1. The meta-lookup algorithm always picks the most specific route to any destination; administrative policy controls are used only to choose among routes that are equally specific. Some felt that some network managers may wish to have policy influence route choice among routes that are not equally specific (in particular, some may wish to emulate the result of the ``Rank Ordering of Routing Protocols'' approach). 2. The preference of a route is not influenced by route leaking. Some felt that this is incorrect: the preference of a route ought to improve if the route is leaked into a routing protocol whose default preference value is better than the original preference value of the route. Neither of these issues were completely resolved at the meeting, so the author was tasked to consider them in the next version of the paper. IP Type of Service Philip Almquist is attempting to write an RFC on the use of the TOS bits in the IP header. The group briefly reviewed the then-current draft (``Type of Service in the Internet Protocol'', available as an Internet Draft). Although the group raised some editorial concerns, consensus on the technical content was reached with almost no debate. Attendees Philip Almquist almquist@jessica.stanford.edu William Barns barns@gateway.mitre.org Arthur Berggreen art@acc.com David Bridgham dab@asylum.sf.ca.us 2 Gregory Bruell gob@shiva.com Ross Callon callon@bigfut.enet.dec.com Vinton Cerf vcerf@nri.reston.va.us Peter Chang tpc@mtunm.att.com Rob Coltun rcoltun@ni.umd.edu Kurt Dobbins dobbins@ctron.com Robert Elz kre@munnari.oz.au Dino Farinacci dino@cisco.com Dennis Ferguson dennis@canet.ca William Fink bill@wizard.gsfc.nasa.gov David Forster forster@marvin.dec.com Vince Fuller vaf@stanford.edu Deborah Futcher dfutche@eco.twg.com Chris Gunner gunner@osicwg.enet.dec.com Steven Hotz hotz@isi.edu B.V. Jagadeesh bvj@3com.com Frank Kastenholz kasten@europa.clearpoint.com Michael Khalandovsky mlk@ftp.com Paulina Knibbe knibbe@cisco.com Stev Knowles stev@ftp.com Richard Larkin rblarkin@sprintf.merit.edu John Lekashman lekash@nas.nasa.gov Mark Lewis mlewis@telebit.com Tony Li tli@cisco.com John Lynn lynn@ttcllcat.cit.cornell.edu Shane MacPhillamy slm@netrix.com Gary Malkin gmalkin@ftp.com Bill Manning bmanning@rice.edu Bernie May bfm@houxa.att.com April Merrill abmerri@tycho.ncsc.mil John Moy jmoy@proteon.com Karen O'Donoghue kodonog@relay.nswc.navy.mil David O'Leary oleary@sura.net Radia Perlman perlman@radia.enet.dec.com Jason Perreault perreaul@interlan.interlan.com Lars Poulsen lars@cmc.com James Rees rees@ifs.umich.edu Michael Reilly reilly@nsl.dec.com Gershon Schatzberg 439-3582@mcimail.com John Scudder jgs@merit.edu John Seligson johns@ultra.com Richard Smith smiddy@pluto.dss.com Frank Solensky solensky@clearpoint.com Emil Sturniolo emil@dss.com Osamu Takada takada@sdl.hitachi.co.jp Ross Veach rrv@uiuc.edu Jonathan Wenocur jhw@shiva.com Walter Wimer walter.wimer@andrew.cmu.edu Cathy Wittbrodt cjw@nersc.gov John Wobus jmwobus@suvm.acs.syr.edu Robert Woodburn woody@cseic.saic.com Joseph Zur fibrontics!zur@uunet.uu.net Peter de Vries peter@wco.ftp.com 3