Chairs: Pyda Srisuresh - srisuresh@yahoo.com Matt Holdrege - holdrege@lucent.com Reported by: Yves Tjoens - yves.tjoens@alcatel.be Gabriel Montenegro - Gabriel.Montenegro@Eng.Sun.COM Prepared by: Suresh & Matt ____________________________________________________________________ In order to avoid confusion, the following indentation and format legend should be used as a guide to interpreting the minutes. - "" Detailed Slides and/or Comments made by the presenter Questions from the Audience: [ - ] _________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA: 1. Base-Nat drafts * draft-iab-nat-implications-05.txt from Tony 10 mins. * draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt 5 mins. from Matt 2. RSIP drafts - 30 mins. * draft-ietf-nat-rsip-slp-00.txt * draft-ietf-nat-rsip-ipsec-03.txt * draft-ietf-nat-rsip-protocol-06.txt * draft-ietf-nat-rsip-framework-04.txt 3. Miscellaneous - 15 mins. -------------------- Matt - Matt proposed sending the draft to IETF for a 4-wk last call to flesh out more comments. Fred Baker: why an ietf last call for an info i-d? Matt: Because it impinges on so many things. Matt sent an e-mail to all the wg chairs yet we still need more feedback. Fred Baker: It does not hurt, but is unexpected. Matt: This was the best way the chairs and ADs think to get the required comments. Suresh: Base nat drafts are the reason this wg was formed, we need to move past them. This is a base NAT draft and we need to do whatever it takes to get the necessary input. --------------------- Mike Borella - RSIP drafts terminology changes: rsip client: client portion of rsip protocol rsip server: server portion of rsip protocol rsip client and server from before are now called rsip host and rsip gateway. minor changes in protocol. Don't care parms are now empty instead of filling with 0's. revision of query_request and query_response using indicator to disambiguate whether talking about subnets or host addresses beefed up error processing and general protocol behavior deprecated: ok and deallocate msgs (not needed or redundant) added overall length field (good for tcp) error msgs and codes separated and listed categorized: host vs. gateway mandatory vs. optional iana section + editorial work further work: minor stuff, deltas are getting smaller is protocol minimal or complete? examples? error msgs complete? clarify behavior? Should we send to last call? Elliot lear: not ready for last call just yet question on determining inside or outside hosts. Mike: basically, this might be a situation when if you can't tell, just let the user use nat and hope for the best. Suresh: Wasnt it decided in the last meeting that RSIP should simply be a replacement stack for IP? Apps shouldnt have to be redone with RSIP stack, right? Elliot: you should not specify if an app should use nat or rsip, but you should provide the mechanisms for the administrator to enforce that. Are you doing app based routing? if so apps must know about this. mike: Hopefully apps should not know whether nat or rsip is being used. matt: let's not have the "which is better" conversation here. elliot: perhaps the query should help disambiguate this, but it might require having ports in the query. matt: perhaps you could write a draft on this topic? elliot: what i need is something to help determine using nat or rsip. for example to avoid tunneling. Gabriel: you don't need to avoid rsip to avoid tunneling. we have tunneling there because we didn't want to delay,but it's simple to enable direct delivery. this is similar to MN-FA link in mobile ip (no tunneling). mike: we should avoid having to touch the application scott bradner: you suggesting that the initial handshake would have an application id? there's something like this in rsvp. suresh: make the tunnel endpoint explicit, instead of assuming that they are the src/dst addresses, it may be possible to have the resources assigned by a different box than that which is involved in the data transport, so tunnel endpoint is not necessarily the signal endpoint. mike: now you need a protocol between the rsip controller and the gateway scott: just specifying another first hop to use seems reasonable, but no more. suresh: In section 7 - Flow based logic and state terms are confusing. Why should you need this? mike: it's not mandated, you can have macro or micro or no policy. Suresh: In that case, OK. --------------- 3 sections now implementation issues deployment interaction with layer 3 protocols new sections on intserv diffserv multicast dns locating rsip gateways brief discussion on authentication further work mobile ip section will synch up Brian Carpenter: an rsip gw may be a diffserv router as defined by diffserv. pls check to make sure it's ok. suresh: Draft looks much improved. Has RSA-Ip or RSAP-IP been tested with applications that are known to have problems with NAT? mike: for relatively simple nat-unfriendly protocols, rsip just works without changing the app. suresh: Is this draft applicable for both rsa-ip and rsap-ip? mike: don't see much market for rsa-ip. people want to share one ip addr among many hosts. in that situation, just use dhcp. suresh: That is not right. RSA-IP can be useful for renumbering. RSIP data path needs to be clarified. Specifically, you need to list the catalysts for intercation between RSIP-host and RSIP-client. mike: perhaps for later with feedback from stack developer folks? suresh: more urgent than that. need convincing arguments that socket interactions would be supported by rsip stacks as well. For example, are applications required to request different sockets based on the destination address they are talking to? when does the RSIP stack request RSIP client to initiate a control session with RSIP-server? ----------------- strong recommendation that ike float the source port already allowed, for testing for example this way, no need to do i-cookie agreement. client is much easier. also solves problems with remote host rekeying suresh: does not help when you are receiver of ike initiation and you rekey phase 1. Answer(someone in Audience): you usually reuse the ports used in phase 1. so it would be ok. suresh: Even in that cae, Use of Ephemeral IKE ports would only help in the case of IKE initiation by RSIP hosts - cannot be IKE responder using ephemeral ports. mike: rsip message authentication. no encryption, just authentication related draft in dhc, redirecting to get the ip addr of your rsip server rsip on linux: rsiponlinux-request@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca ---------------- draft-ietf-nat-rsip-slp-00.txt - jim kempf allow client to find rsip server based on characteristics of server draft contains service type template for rsip service type added a service attribute for load-balancing how to use scopes for provisioning more flexibility in deployment example on using slp scopes for provisioning does the wg want this to advance to proposed/informational, other? suggest advancing along with the rest of the rsip drafts --------- draft-iab-nat-implications-05.txt - tony hain pls look through it, this one is intended to be final. --------- carmelo zaccone on generic architecture for rsip as time ran out question to the wg: is our work of interest? is it within the scope of the wg? multiroaming with isp's, general enterprise, current rsip has limitations End Of Meeting