CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by David Arneson/Cabletron and Manu Kaycee/Ascom Nexion Minutes of the IPv6 MIB Working Group (IPV6MIB) Overview The IPv6MIB Working Group met in two sessions on Monday, 3 April, and Thursday, 6 April. After the customary agenda bashing and introductions, proceeds from the IP6MIB BOF were reviewed, which was then followed by a review of the working group charter. A general overview of the required effort, technical highlights, and proposed work items was presented and discussed. To which end, it was deemed that no changes would be required to the standards-track SNMPv2 documents, and additional Textual Convention(s) and Transport Mappings would be specified in other RFCs. Textual Conventions, Transport Mappings, and organization of existing MIBs were discussed, with no definitive result or outcome. The working group agreed to conduct follow on discussion on the mailing list. The incoming Area Directors for the Internet and Network Management Areas and the working group agreed to (re)explore appropriate areas where IPv6-related management oriented work may be conducted. Agenda o Agenda Bashing o Introductions o San Jose BOF Review o Working Group Charter Review o General Overview and Technical Highlights o Work Done to Date o Open Discussion o Administravia o Framework Overview o SNMPv1/SNMPv2: Impact and Issues o Existing MIBs: Impact and Issues o IPv6 MIBs: Proposed Organization o Open Discussion o Next Steps Introductions Fred Baker has been assigned as the Network Management Area Directorate Consultant. In this capacity, Fred will provide expert consultation in the development of relative MIBs and their respective organizations. David Arneson has agreed to serve as editor of documents that will be developed as part of the current working group charter. San Jose BOF Review -- Manu Kaycee A BOF was held at the previous IETF meeting in San Jose. In order to understand how to best proceed with the development of IPv6-related MIBs, a number of items were discussed and explored, including: o IPv6 Managed Subsystems: various parts of IPv6 Protocol Suite o Management Support Entities: management protocol extensions o Various relationships between IPv4, IPv6, and Applications o Affected MIBs o Proposed organization of MIBs and next steps The general result and opinion of the BOF was to request the formation of a working group to conduct the additional work. Working Group Charter Review -- Manu Kaycee In order to solicit comments and ensure general agreement, the charter was briefly reviewed. The three broad categories, Management Protocol Support, Existing MIBs, and IPv6 MIBs, were discussed. There was general agreement on the scope of work, which includes: o Identify changes and extensions, if applicable, to existing standards-track SNMPv2 RFCs. o Identify existing MIBs that will be affected, identify new MIBs required, and develop a proposed organization. o liaison with working groups such as IPNGWG and NGTRANS. The current charter calls for this working group to identify existing MIBs that will be affected, and promote additional work on such MIBs to be conducted in the working groups that originally developed them. Deirdre Kostick, the incoming Network Management Area Director, indicated that most of these working groups were planning to shut down. To which end, she suggested that she, as Network Management Area Director, the Internet Area Directors, and the chair of this working group decide on how best to proceed. General Overview and Technical Highlights -- Dave Arneson This presentation includes specifics on: o SNMP Impact o SNMPv2 Status o Technical Direction o Changes to Existing MIBs o New MIBs o Current Work SNMP impact is dictated by performing all work in SNMPv2 SMI. This will allow for better MIB structures to better exploit IPv4 versus IPv6 issues, and a conversion to SNMPv1 is provided. Furthermore, a new RFC will be developed in order to specify an IPv6 Transport Domain. Fred Baker asked whether we should investigate using a new Port number for SNMP running over UDP/IPv6 networks. This was in relation to being able to simplify the Transport Mapping. Marshall Rose indicated that there was a `parallel' to using the same Port number, with the existing mapping for CLNS and CONS. The group agreed to further discuss, if necessary, on the mailing list. In terms of current SNMPv2 status, a Textual Convention for the IPv6 address, and the corresponding Transport Address and Domain have been defined. But, we are waiting on references to IPv6 Protocol and Addressing RFCs. Fred Baker indicated that the current Textual Convention does not satisfactorily address unnumbered interfaces, and suggested that the working group look at including unnumbered interfaces within the Textual Convention for the IPv6 address. This would ease traversal of MIBs, especially tables. Fred indicated that he would present a Textual Convention format during the second session. Dave's proposed technical direction is to develop and Informational RFC specifying: o Network Address (ifIndex for unnumbered interfaces) Textual Convention o Suggested methods for individual handling of IPv4 and IPv6 objects o Suggested methods for joint handling of IPv4/IPv6 objects o Convert relevant groups (MIB modules) of MIB-II The MIBs that need change, as presented in a fairly concise list, are: o DNS MIB o FIB o OSPF, RIP, and BGP/IDRP MIBs The areas that need to be addressed, at least for IPv6, are: o Address Resolution o Neighbor Discovery o Tunneling o Mobility o Qualily of Service o Security It was indicated, and noted, that commonality exists between quality of service, as indicated here, and work occurring in the Integrated Services Working Group (INTSERV). The chair agreed to pursue this. Work Done to Date Since IPv6 implementations are underway, the chair queried the working group to see whether any such implementations had corresponding management instrumentation. There were no affirmative answers. Open Discussion Three issues were raised as follows: o MIB-II Evolution o Split Objects (e.g. UDP over IPv4 and/or UDP over IPv6) o Changes to SMI for IPv6 Address The MIB-II evolution and Split Objects' issues centered around the `what' and `where.' The what centers around the organization of objects. For example, one school of thought suggests that separate parallel objects be devised for IPv6. Another school of thought suggested that existing IPv4-specific objects (e.g. counters) be semantically modified to count IPv4 and IPv6 packets/octets, and have a separate counter for corresponding IPv6 packets/octets. The latter, of course, would force us to deprecate existing objects. No clear consensus was reached during this session, with the thought that we would further address this issue during the second working group session. The chair indicated that he was approached by an individual who wanted to re-discuss extending the SNMPv2 SMI to support the IPv6 address, and make a presentation to that end during the second session. Jeff Case asked for clarification on the extent of said changes/extensions. The extent of such changes/extensions were to the extent discussed during the San Jose BOF. Administravia and Framework Overview At the start of the second session, the chair provided the following as updates: o Bob Hinden provided two IPng references required by us: IPng Protocol and Addressing Architecture Specifications. o Based on an off-line discussion with the chair, where pros and cons of SNMPv2 SMI extensions were discussed, the individual intent on proposing such changes agreed to withdraw said suggestions. To which end, we have complete consensus on the use of a Textual Convention for IPv6 address representation. The following were presented as points for discussion: o Management Environment consists of: - IPv4 Manager/Agent and IPv4/IPv6 Managed Device(s) - IPv6 Manager/Agent and IPv4/IPv6 Managed Device(s) - IPv6 Manager/Agent and IPv6 Managed Device(s) o No proposed changes to SNMPv2 SMI -- use Textual Conventions for IPv6 Addresses. o No additional SNMP Protocol support (`extensions') are needed to manage IPv6 via IPv4 Managers. o Since no changes to the SNMPv2 base documents have been noted, this working group let those documents evolve along the standards track, as proposed by the SNMPv2 Working Group. o Decouple IPv6 Address and Transport Mappings specification by developing a separate RFC. All of the points were accepted. SNMPv1/SNMPv2: Impact and Issues Fred Baker presented a modified Textual Convention as follows: Octet 1 is Type: 1 - IPv6 Address 2 - interface number in network order With the remaining octets being the actual value of the Address of Interface number. David Arneson suggest that this be modified to include explicit support for other Network Type Addresses (e.g., IPX, NSAPs) as follows: 1 - IPv6 Address 2 - interface number in network order 3 - future use With the remaining octets being the actual value of the Address of Interface number. This can be extended to include other Network Addresses and Host Addresses. Fred Baker indicated the problem we might have with variable sized addresses in this encoding scheme. He took an action item to contact the appropriate individuals to discuss the same, with additional discussion being conducted on the mailing list. IPv6 MIBs: Proposed Organization Discussion continued on object usage and the definition of new objects. Should existing objects continue to reflect IPv4 only or should they be an aggregate? After some discussion it was decided that both IPv4 and IPv6 counters are needed. It was also suggested that we review enterprise specific work done for ST-II, and use it as a precedent. The working group decided to follow though with ST-II and conduct additional discussions on the mailing list. Two other presentations were not made due to scheduling and availability conflicts. The chair has requested said individuals to discuss their proposal on the mailing list. Next Steps Since discussions on Textual Conventions, Transport Mappings, and organization of existing MIBs did not yield definitive results or outcome, the working group agreed to conduct follow-on discussion on the mailing list. Since many working groups, that might normally have worked on updates to existing MIBs, have either wrapped up or intend to wind down shortly, administrative issues need to be reviewed. The incoming Area Directors for the Internet and Network Management Areas and the working group agreed to (re)explore appropriate areas where IPv6-related management oriented work may be conducted.