IPV6MIB BOF (IPV6MIB) Reported by David Arneson/Cabletron Systems and Manu Kaycee/Ascom Timeplex Introduction The first Birds of a Feather (BOF) session to discuss management work, as it relates to IPv6, was held on Monday, 5 December 1994 in San Jose. Goal of the Session The goal of BOF session was to discuss management-related work and issues that pertain to IPv6. These include, but may not be limited to: o Changes to existing standards track SNMPv2 documents o Potential changes to existing MIBs o New and additional MIBs o Administrative issues o Next steps General Discussion General discussion was conducted via a presentation prepared by Dave Arneson, Manu Kaycee, and Frank Solensky. The discussion progressed as: o IPv6 Managed Subsystems o Management Support Entities o Relationships: IPv4, IPv6, and ``Applications'' o Affected MIBs o Proposed Organization o Administrative Issues As part of an overview effort to identify potential areas of work, the various IPv6 Managed Subsystems were discussed, as follows: o Network Subsystem o Transport Subsystem o ``Application'' Subsystem o Interface Subsystem As presented, the Network Subsystem includes IPv6 protocol, and associated ICMP, IGMP; neighbor discovery, tunneling, and mobility; forwarding and flows; network address resolution; and header compression. It was pointed out that we should also include security aspects as part of the Network Subsystem. The issues dealt with key tables and key management. The point was acknowledged and noted. Each major item is aligned to be a separate MIB module, much in line with the current MIB-II evolutionary work. As presented, the Transport Subsystem includes TCP and UDP. It was noted that it might be good to be able to fold in proceeds from the emerging TCPng work. As presented, the ``Application'' Subsystem included routing protocols, DNS, and address administration and management. It was pointed out, and noted, that address configuration must be included. As presented, the Interface Subsystem includes link layer entities that would need to be either changed, updated, or modified to provide support for IPv6. To which end, the PPP NCP for IPv6 will require managed objects. A few management support entities are required, in order to support IPv6. For example, a new transport mapping needs to be developed for UDP/IPv6. To which end, the IPv6 address (format) will need to be accommodated. The new address can be accommodated either by an extension to the SNMPv2 SMI, or a new textual convention. Attendees believed the textual convention option as preferable by far. To that end, the group indicated that the textual convention be consistent for IPv4 and IPv6, and also support addresses belonging to other protocol families. One proposal suggested that this be an OCTET STRING, with the first octet serving as the a ``tag,'' and the remaining octets embedding the address. It was agreed that additional discussion would be conducted on a mailing list. The relationship between IPv4, IPv6, and Applications was briefly addressed. For example, should (can) we strive for common managed objects between IPv6 and IPv4? If so, should (can) all or some of the managed object be in common? Should (can) we employ common managed objects for a routing protocol used for both IPv6 and IPv4? If so, should (can) all or some of the managed objects be in common? The list of affected MIBs include, but are not limited to: o MIB-II o Forwarding Information Base o Routing Protocols o Link specific MIBs (e.g. IPCP) o Accounting MIB o RMON-II o Host MIB and a proposed organization is: o Network MIB (Protocol, ICMP, IGMP, and Header Compression) o Network Support MIB (Neighbor Discovery, Tunneling, Mobility, and Network Address Resolution) o Forwarding and Flows MIB o Transport MIB (TCP, and UDP) o Routing Protocol MIBs o DNS MIB o Address Administration/Management/Configuration MIB o IP Control Protocol MIB o Security MIB (should this be part of network MIB) (This can include things like behavior of what to do on failure of authentication. Control over auth and priv.) Administrative Matters Though there is keen interest in management work related to IPv6, relevant working groups, their respective charters, and a potential general schedule were not discussed. It was decided that: o The co-chairs would seek advice from the existing IPng Area Directors on the feasibility of forming of a new new working group. o A mailing list will be created to allow on-line discussion and initial, preparatory work. Please note that the list is established and is: ip6mib@research.ftp.com o Appropriate ``liaisoning'' with the SNMPv2 Working Group within the Network Management Area. Please note that the ``liaison'' is Dave Arneson, and associated work has already begun. o A request be submitted to the IPng Area Director(s) that relevant IPv6 documents discuss address management.