* 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 —  

IETF-113 intarea minutes


minutes-113-intarea-04 minutes

          IntArea Ð IETF 113, Vienna, 3/22/2022
          Juan Carlos Zuniga (Cisco)
          Wassim Haddad (Ericsson)
          All presentations are individual, no working group document.
          No changes to the agenda
          Agenda Bashing, WG & Document Status Updates (Chairs)
          5 minutes
          IPv4 policing at the IETF - Seth Schoen
          draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4 - 15 min
          Seth: present the first two of the series of 4 drafts on IPv4 address
          Seth: IPv4 requires maintenance, and IETF is positioned for this
          Local fix is local and does not raise allocation policy questions
          disagreement about Ipv4 fixes
          in 2016 it was proposed that IPv4 should be declared historical, hope
          to see the opposite consensus. IPv4 is still widely used and some RFC
          are still focus on IPv4.
          Eric: can the IETF commit to something forever?, clarify IPv4 fix,
          protocol, addressing?
          Seth: I donÕt this there has been a transition strategy, I don't suggest
          that the IETF should commit to something eternal.
          Seth: Fix proposed by implementors, existing RFC about allocation,
          addressing, our proposal is agnostic on that kind of question, we are
          really focused on existing implementations.
          Eric: donÕt use unused addresses just to gain one year.
          Tom: How many people are actually going to help?, do we care?, this
          effort goes against the development of IPv6
          Seth: It seem to be a possible point of argument, our fixes alleviate
          the scarcity problem
          Jen: Fixing bug, but not developing anything new, I have no objection
          in maintenance, IÕm a bit confused about, getting higher lever consensus
          will help?
          Seth: In our understanding, a lot of people will say that this is not
          beneficial because IPv4 is done, thatÕs why we need consensus
          IP Parcels - Fred Templin
          draft-templin-intarea-parcels - 15 min
          Fred: a segment is the retransmission unit in case of lost, and a parcel
          may contain multiple segments. In that sense, it is a packet of packets.
          Add a jumbo payload option and not 0 in payload length.
          IP parcels are based on IP Jumbograms, it can be supported in IPv6 and
          Can we adopt the document as a WG Item ?
          JCZ: need support on the list
          Lars: how can this increase performance?
          Fred: it reduced the numbers of interrupts and the overhead of the
          Lars: We already do it on the ends, we have already these efficiencies.
          Fred: There is no additional efficiency over GSO?
          Fred: The end systems see the same efficiency that we see with GSO GRO
          TCP segment offload. Because a Parcel may contain multiple segments,
          end systems will see better performance than just using GSO/GRO when
          the Parcel is sent intact over links that have sufficient MTU. Also,
          GSO/GRO are not and cannot be standardized, whereas IP Parcels can be.
          Luigi: How will the network have the ability to know how to use the
          Fred: We start to send regular IP packets and then you send the probe. If
          the probe succeeds you can then start using parcels.
          Luigi: What happens if links in the middle support IP Parcels but the
          end doesnÕt.
          Fred: Then, it will be like regular IP packets.
          Internet addressing gaps - Luigi Iaonne 15 min - update on 2 drafts
          Luigi: side meeting, three questions arise: (i) what features do we want,
          (ii) hows the feature innovation happening, (iii) what is an address ?
          goal was to bring the community to discuss addressing.
          Documents are a community effort, WG adoption ?
          JCZ: No comments from the room, discussion continues to mailing list.
          Semantic IP addressing for satellite - Lin Han
          10 min
          Lin: L3 solutions for LEO constellation. Satellite are very
          organized. Semantic address. A satellite can be addressed by 3 values. IGP
          can be used but itÕll bring some problems. Use hybrid solutions
          Gorry: Which operators or manufacturers are calling to do this
          constellation interoperability work?
          Lin: Answer in the problem statement. Today, there are mostly different
          service providers and resources like orbits and spectrum will be
          limited. In the future they may need to interoperate.
          Gorry: Did Starlink show some interest or are interested in
          Lin: They are testing ISL this year, but for the moment they are only
          using proprietary solutions.
          IP regional Internet blocking considerations, Leonard (Lenny) Giuliano
          Lenny: individual work with personal views.
          Eric: Thanks for specifying this.
          Lenny: Discussion on blocking the internet for some specific regions to
          describe impact. Intended audience is Policy makers and general public.
          Ted: The Internet Society (ISOC) has already addressed this with some
          documents in the past: Sudan 2019 for example. Three (3) reports have
          been published on this topic, addressing policy makers:
          I suggest that the authors consider reviewing this work from ISOC and
          contribute there. Important to state that this document in the current
          shape should not be addressed to policy makers, as they need to have
          the full picture with the political and society impact, and not only the
          technical side. I discourage IntArea to adopt this, and I encourage the
          authors to contribute with the valuable expertise in other fora.
          Lenny: Thanks for feedback. I would like to hear from the WG. Back to
          the consensus, donÕt have an answer yet.
          Jen: I read this as a Dr specifying ways to hurt your neighbour.
          Lenny: This is definitely not the intention. The intention is to consider
          consequences before trying to hurt anyone.
          Alissa: IÕm one of the authors of the RFC 7724, we got similar comments
          because this was also triggered by events in the past. It took a long
          time to publish it (beyond the timeline of the event that was actually
          intended for), but we got to the publication. You canÕt really avoid
          the political implications of the document, and taken out of political
          context it would be misinterpreted as an endorsement.
          Lenny: The intention is definitely not to endorse it to policy makers.
          Rudiger: Have you reviewed on any expertise in diplomacy to see the
          potential side effects of this ? How can this be a constructive document,
          I feel that whatever relevant or correct information you have in the
          document, if you begin this way, you encourage people to behave like this,
          or even an invitation to to something like this, do you really feel
          the public discussion like this?, I would urge the authors to really
          invoke qualified diplomatic expertise to clarify the actual effects,
          historical background.
          Lenny: We did not consult diplomatic experts. We tried to make it clear
          that we are not supporting or endorsing this. We think this is a good
          Informational source. Open question BCP vs informational. Ignoring the
          subject or saying nothing does not help neither.
          Tom: Speaking as an individual. This is trying to be a technical document
          responding to a political issue. I think youÕve written very well, I want
          to draw your attention about what you say and what is the message you
          actually spread. Have you seen any of the Internet Sanctions project? I
          think that showing the raw information is not the best way to convey
          the message. IÕll not support the document and I donÕt think it should
          be supported by any IETF working group.
          Benjamin: I appreciate the intention. Timeline is moving fast and it is
          important to take a longer time horizon. Taking this in a technical way
          does not respond to the actual political question, itÕs not possible to be
          neutral in this matter. More productive would be to go to an organization
          that does not have to be neutral and can make a political statement.
          Lenny: WeÕre not trying to advocate against or for, itÕs meant to be
          technical neutral.
          Mallory: Tomorrow weÕll have the hrpc meeting I look forward to talk
          with you about this matter, I think the effort to try to describe the
          problems is an important thing. I welcome the discussion, even though
          I also donÕt agree with the adoption of the document in its current
          form. The censorship draft referenced in the slides is a good example,
          and probably could be used. So far there have been no sanctions in
          similar situations in the past. IETF is in the business of keeping things
          connected, which is contrary to sanctioning.
          Lenny: For transparency, we are presenting this in hrpc not for doing
          WG shopping, but to get feedback from a broader audience. Regarding WG
          adoption, IntArea was the only considered WG for adoption.
          JCZ: Thanks for the presentation and the discussion. Lenny, I encourage
          you to look at the references and the feedback you got about the best
          fora to provide this type of information. Regarding adoption, now it
          is clear that there is no consensus and that the IntArea group does not
          believe this is something we should consider for adoption.
          On Higher Levels of Address Aggregation - Tony Li
          15 min
          CIDR log time ago, not enough aggregation
          new concept: abstraction naming boundary, not at this ISP boundary. ISP
          generate more specific prefix, and the abstraction boundary does the
          can this apply to organization, continental or regional?
          regional is possible for IPv6. Too close to the region, no traffic
          engineering, too far not interest.
          Dino: We thought about the proxy aggregation, inbound vs outbound,
          etc. Proxy aggregation may be better at the egress.
          Tony: In the interest of time, letÕs discuss this offline.
          Service Routing in Multi-access Edge Computing - Zongpeng Du
          Benjamin: Private information by hashing URL should not be
          revealed? specially in DNS info.
          Tom : How can you guarantee that the DNS does not clash into another IP
          no conflict?
          JCZ: No more time for questions or calls. We will ask take the call for
          support / adoption for the drafts on the list.

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