IP: Next Generation Area

Directors:


   o Scott Bradner:  sob@harvard.edu
   o Allison Mankin:  mankin@cmf.nrl.navy.mil


Area Summary reported by Scott Bradner/Harvard and Allison Mankin/NRL

During the Toronto IETF meeting, one special IPng presentation was given
and three IPng working groups, six BOFs and one open directorate meeting
were held.

On Monday morning the area directors made their IPng recommendation
during the plenary session.  Specific recommendations were made
concerning the protocol design and the set of working groups which
should be formed to take the documents to Proposed Standard status.  The
recommendation will be issued as an Internet-Draft for public comment.
The IESG will review the recommendation after a Last Call period.



IPng Directorate (NGDIR)

The IPng Directorate held an open meeting Monday afternoon where a
number of aspects of the IPng recommendation were discussed.  A number
of specific concerns were raised for the consideration of the
directorate.



Address Autoconfiguration BOF (ADDRCONF)

A proposed charter for the proposed IPng Address Autoconfiguration
Working Group was covered.  The proposed address autoconfiguration
protocol was then presented and discussed.



Endpoint Identifier BOF (EID)

An EID BOF was held to see if there was any consistent understanding of
what an EID is.  There was not.  The BOF attendees agreed that there
were about four different ideas about what an EID was or was used for.
They agreed to do a series of write-ups to explain the different ideas.
After that is done, it may be time to do further work to resolve the
confusion.


IPng Working Group BOF (IPNGWG)

Two meetings were held of the IPNGWG BOF. The first one was held in
conjunction with the open IPng Directorate (NGDIR) meeting.  At the end
of the directorate section the outline of the charter for the proposed
IPng Working Group was presented and comments solicited.

The second one was used to host a series of presentations addressing
specific issues in the IPng recommendation.  The presentations focused
on the selection of the specific IPng address format, the advisability
of tunneling, the requirement for header compression, the need to have
packets larger than 64KB, mapping other types of address space into
IPng, an ability to support many addresses per host, the constraints
imposed by mobility and charging for addresses.


Transition and Coexistence Including Testing BOF (TACIT)

The first TACIT meeting was focused on trying to resolve the charter.
The second meeting was focused on the short-term transition issues.  Bob
Gilligan gave a presentation on SST which will be the basis of the IPng
transition plan and Dave Piscitello gave presentations on the TUBA
dual-stack approach so that the working group would have a full
understanding of the transition issues.


Address Lifetime Expectations Working Group (ALE)

In the ALE Working Group meeting the current projections of the lifetime
of the IPv4 address space were reconfirmed but data presented indicated
that there may be a reason to think that the projections are a bit
optimistic.


Simple Internet Protocol Plus Working Group (SIPP)

The SIPP Working Group met twice.  They discussed the IPng
recommendation and its implications.  The working group decided to
conclude since its chairs indicated that they were going to resign at
the end of the week.  Steve Deering will co-chair the new IPng Working
Group (with Ross Callon) and Bon Hinden will be acting as document
editor.


TCP/UDP Over CLNP-Addressed Networks Working Group (TUBA)

The TUBA Working Group met to discuss the IPng recommendation and its
impact of the TUBA effort.  A number of options for the future of the
working group were discussed.  It was decided that the working group
should go into hiatus until some of the documents in process are
submitted as RFCs.