----------------------------------------------------------- Minutes of the SAVI working group meeting at IETF 74 Monday, March 23, 15:20 - 17:20, room Continental 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- SAVI MoM by Bill Fenner FCFS in IPv4: What about servers? Fred's DHCP document for IPv4 Broadband Forum - no liaison manager - some people do 1:1 VLANs - need BDP to do N:1 VLANs - DAD multicast means that router may not see DAD NS - Routers will receive all multicast, so they can snoop DAD, but other switchers (or broadband CPE) cannot - Violating the subnet model violates some basic assumptions of RFC 4861/4862 -- link-local is not local to the link - Fred: This is a basic model used by all broadband technology, so we have to deal with it somehow - all about shared versus NBMA vs. somewhere between - DAD failure scenario: L1 comes up on CPE, VPLS still being negotiated so DAD is sent and lost MINUTES TAKEN BY HUI DENG: Note taker: 1 Summary Christian introduced since 73, 1.1 control packets can trigger binding establishment 1.2 no FCFS for IPv4 1.3 introduce DHCP mode for IPv6 1.4 under discussion: binding distribution protocol? Marcelo: What's next step for DHCPv6 case. Christian: we take logic of IPv4 and bring it into IPv6. Fred: I document what we Cisco implement.but don't document it.but it is not a FCFS. Christian: Fred's document could be a starting point. Fred: Whether we could both Ipv6 and Ipv4 support in the same document. Christian: we don't need document some many deliveriable if there are the same mechanism. Frank: DSL forum (orland)document solicitation is going well. SAVI based on DHCPv6 is related to DSL Forum network architecture, I think it is the same architecture like other access network. Christian: send it to the list. Frank: last meeting, we missed deadline. BB forum specific solution. Alcatel Lucent: BB Forum don't acept any contribution. BB forum have a formal liason. Frank: I mean requirement has been accpeted by BB forum, I didn't mean solution. Alcatel Lucent: Christian: hold the discussion. 2 Liason Christian: Fred: I spoken as one participant from BB Forum, Alcatel: clarify the scenario. Fred: one to one case, I don't see the problem. chrisitan: behind the bridge, one to one could talk, Suresh: CPE can be Marcelo, this is what we need binding distribution solution. Fred: I am opposing binding distribution solution for several reasons. suresh: multiple end host can have the same address. Fred: Edge router could do DAD, to avoid confliction. James: Naive question, 2RFCs really need big change? Fred: this is particular BB forum case,could be wimax architecture, not ethernet case Frank: mobile Ip support only shared point to point mode , not shared link model. but savi is designed in shared link model, if apply to public network, it need update to adapt to. Chrsitian: Feedback to BB Forum and post to the mailing list for discussion. 3 Do we need a binding distribution protocol for SAVI. Marcelo one binding in one device. Fred: my concern: network scability, Quite large number of switches christian: SAVI just listen Fred: Unicast work, but multicast is dead. Marcelo: I agree DAD to store the state. suresh: fred,how can you attack? Fred: multicast Gabriel: how we do know this address unique. Chrsitian: are you contacting people Gabriel: I can do that , sure Fred: how many people implement DAD based? None. There are no binding distribution protocol, only binding verification protocol. chair: two questions touched: 1) deploy question; 2) SAVI partly deployed. 1st question: Does SAVI solutionwant to support arbitrary inter-connection between legacy device and savi device? 10 people yes, 4 people No. Marcelo: that type of restricsion make sense to have? ...: you could choose gradually deploy model and arbitrary. Marcelo: DAD as a binding verication protocol. Chair: multple mac address appear in different port. Fred: the charter talk about ethernet. Marcelo: If we could do it easy way, we should fall back to constrained toplogy. Fred: firstly, we should agree problems. chair: protection inter-domain savi devices. next step: come some proposal to reall solve this problem. DAD as a binding verification protocol. 4 Discussion 5 SAVI Progress Report Jun Bi CERNET, Lightening talks on potential future work, if time permits: 6 Access Node Control Protocol for SAVI Frank: There are two ways, DSLAM learned, the other is BRAS router learned and populate to DLSAM. Alcatel: you need to present in BB Forum, and see more support there. 7 CGA extension Header of IPv6 Paddy, one of the charterof "SAIV" NO change to the host. Q: who implement SEND server, DSLAM and BRAS in SAVI scenario? A: Anywhere, 8 SAVI with Host identifity Protocol.