CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Dave O'Leary/cisco Systems Minutes of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group (IDR) The IDR Working Group held two sessions on Thursday, 8 December. Agenda Bashing o Guidelines for the use of autonomous system numbers o CIDR to a Draft Standard o BGP-4 to a Draft Standard o IDRP for IPv6 In addition to the above items the following topics were added: o AS# -- RD mapping o BGP-4 --> IDRP interaction o OSPF --> IDRP interaction Guidelines For the Use of AS Numbers - Tony Bates References are slides and the Internet-Draft, ``Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)'' (draft-ietf-idr-autosys-guide-00.txt). The draft is intended as an advisory document only, to clear up confusion rather than state policy. The document addresses those singly-homed sites whose policy is the same as their provider, intent is to reduce AS number utilization and AS path lengths. Currently there is no choice other than BGP (requiring a legal AS number) or a classless IGP between providers and customers (which is considered non-optimal by many). Classless static also solves this and is used in many cases but does not help in cases of transition from one provider to another or for those who anticipate future multiple homing. This document will probably need to be updated sometime to reflect the existence of BGP communities. Jessica Yu will write some text on how the existence of someone else's policy should not necessarily affect the requirement for using an AS, and why this is a fuzzy area driven by the choice of the originating AS and how their policy is defined. Concern was expressed relative to this document and its lack of text on where AS numbers should be used, so that less knowledgeable service providers do not read this draft the wrong way and try to stop using AS numbers in their networks. Peter Lothberg will write some text. The goal is to have a new version of this document by 14 January 1995. The consensus of the working group was to advance it as a Proposed Standard. CIDR to Draft Standard - Peter Ford There was clear consensus of the working group that the CIDR architecture should move forward as a Draft Standard. The working group agreed to ask the IESG on 15 January 1995 to advance RFC 1518 and RFC 1519 to a Draft Standard. Any comments on these documents should be posted to the mailing list as soon as possible (prior to 15 January). Peter Ford has a rough draft of the CIDR experience document. He is looking for writers and reviewers for this document. BGP-4 to Draft Standard - Paul Traina Known implementations are: cisco, Wellfleet/Bay Networks, gated, 3Com, Rob Coltun's, and European Telebit. There was clear consensus of the working group that BGP-4 should move forward as a Draft Standard. Recent changes in the BGP documents were cleanup of the text relative to the use of the terms ``network,'' ``prefix,'' etc. There was discussion on the use of ``open'' message for use by route reflectors/servers. The change will be editorial; relabel the authentication field as the ``open parameters'' field since it is an extensible field that can still be used for authentication. Its use will be detecting misconfiguration at other layers in the hierarchy. The editors agreed to prepare revised text of BGP-4 (both the protocol specifications and the usage document) within two weeks. The working group agreed to ask the IESG on 15 January 1995 to advance BGP-4 to a Draft Standard. Any comments on the revised text of BGP-4 (protocol specifications or usage document) should be posted to the mailing list as soon as possible (prior to 15 January). Use of Colors Paul Traina proposed to add a new optional transitive attribute to BGP-4 -- ``route color.'' The attribute is defined as a list of long words (four octets) to use for policy control in addition to AS path. Possible examples of application: o do not leave this router o do not leave this AS o others locally significant between peers Sean Doran and Paul Traina will work on a usage document addressing how this will affect aggregation, local color versus global color, scope limitation versus AS path length (some concern/offense was expressed regarding the use of this mechanism). IDRP Transport Over IPv6 - Paul Traina Paul Traina presented a brief overview of the Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-idrp-v6-00.txt. A recent change (clarification) is that one message contains multiple attributes, and changes for consistency with BGP. There was discussion of possible changes to IDRP - sending fewer bits versus complexity of implementation. Yakov will remove text re: routeID (explicit withdrawals) and replace it with advertising just unreachable address prefixes. The group discussed the use of Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED) -- flexibility on a per RD peer basis which is not currently accommodated. This will remain unspecified at this point. A revised version of the Internet-Draft is expected before the next IETF. The Route Server implementation by IBM and ISI (as part of the Routing Arbiter project) will support IDRP for IPv6. AS Number to RDCI/RDI Mapping Since BGP-4 operates in terms of AS numbers, and IDRP operates in terms Routing Domain Identifiers (RDI) or Routing Domain Confederation Identifiers (RDCI), there is a need to define how AS numbers could be mapped into RDI or RDCI. IPv4 mapping is dropped into mapping for IPv6. Connection of IPv4 and IPv6 Domains For transition to IPv6 it will be important to leak IPv4 routing information into IPv6 routing system. Dimitry Haskin agreed to write a document that specifies how this leakage should be done. OSPF --> IDRP for IPv6 Interaction Yakov Rekhter agreed to make the necessary editorial changes to the OSPF/IDRP for IPv4 interaction document to deal with IDRP for IPv6.