The Minutes below should be considered a Rough Draft - 4/01/92 Megan CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Gary Malkin RIP-V2 Working Group Minutes Status Update Chairperson Gary Scott Malkin / gmalkin@ftp.com Mailing List ietf-rip(-request)@ftp.com Date of Last meeting San Diego IETF / March 18, 1992 Date of next meeting Boston IETF / July 1992 Progress Settled on final packet format and new field definitions. Determined that no backwards compatibility issues exist. Made first pass at listing the objects needed in the MIB. Milestones: Boston Final review of RIP-II I-D and submission into the standards track. First review of RIP-II MIB. Washington Review of implementations. Final review of MIB. TBD Given successful implementation experience, advancement of RIP-II to Draft Standard. Submission of MIB into the standards track. TBD Final meeting to achieve closure on any pending issues. Agenda o Review of Working Group charter o Review of newest draft document o Discussion of backwards compatibility issues o Discussion of security issues o What needs to go into the MIB The charter was accepted unchanged. There were two changes to the packet format do to some confusion about the Routing Domain field. The RD field, as defined, is a per packet, user configurable parameter. It has, therefore, been moved into the Must Be Zero field in the RIP packet header. The RD field which was in the RIP entry has been renamed to the Route Tag. It is used to indicate that the route was learned from an external source. The exact use of this field is still under discussion; however, it has been determined that the contents of the RT field must be preserved when that route is propagated. The subsumption of routes, made necessary by the addition of the subnet masks is still under work. The issues accompanying supernetting were also discussed, but no final solutions were reached. We did determine that there should be no user controls for this, since this could lead to black holes if routers were dis-similarly configured. It was decided that supernetting could not be used in the presence of RIP-I routers. It should be explicitly mentioned that next hop is an advisory value. Next hop may also only be used for the directly connected network over which it was received. It was decided that addressless links would not be considered. We will need a new route type for MIB-II. It should be mentioned, if RFC 1058 does not, that split horizon does not apply to routes learned via routing protocols other than RIP.