►
From YouTube: IETF94-INTAREA-20151105-1740.webm
Description
INTAREA meeting session at IETF94
2015/11/05 1740
A
B
B
So
for
the
document
status
like
we
have
two
active
working
group
documents,
so
one
of
them
was
like
GRE
ipv6.
It
just
got
published
as
RFC
76
76
and
we
have
the
tunnels
draft,
which
is
like
just
got
updated
in
the
last
meeting
cycle
and
it's
undergoing
discussions
on
the
list
and
we
have
like
two
new
working
group
drafts.
That's
the
hostname
practice
and
the
ad
hoc
wireless
forms.
So
these
are
adopted
like
two
weeks
ago
and
it's
a
pretty
packed
agenda.
B
So
we
have
like
some
working
two
drafts
and
we'd
start
off,
and
then
we
have
some
communications
from
the
I
Triple
E,
but
multicast,
and
we
have
a
bunch
of
individual
graphs
that
are
requesting
adoption
or
like
at
least
discussion
on
the
on
the
working
group.
And
finally,
we
have
another
presentation
from
I
triply
80
to
15,
for
the
logical
link,
control,
yeah.
B
Okay,
so-
and
this
is
like
kind
of
like
lightning
talks,
but
the
chats
are
going
to
show
the
slide
and
we
get
people
to
talk
for
a
minute.
So
this
is
like
a
draft
concerning
the
broadcast
stuff
and
Rolf,
and
the
back
mike
is
going
to
talk
for
a
minute
about
it,
and
this
is
just
elevator
pitch
right.
C
C
That's
me,
and
so
we
did
a
previous
experiment
on
a
large
wireless
network
and
we
saw
that
basically
devices
today
broadcast
your
identity.
Your
contacts
to
other
people
constantly
so
links
between
people,
hostnames,
persistent
IDs,
hi,
message
frequency.
So
we
know
when
you're
on
the
on
the
network-
and
we
pretty
much
know
very
fast
when
you're
off
the
network.
These
kind
of
things
are
today
very
easily
to
deduct
from
all
the
broadcast
protocols
that
are
out
there
and
it's
not
just
mdns
and
ll
M&R
and
at
least
kind
of
protocols,
but
its
its
application
protocols.
C
It's
Dropbox
45
BitTorrent
sync,
and
it's
increasing
its
more
and
more
it's
how
to
encrypt,
because
it's
broadcast
is
multicast
and
it's
easy
to
collect,
because
you
can
just
passively
sit
on
the
network.
Everybody
on
the
network
is
receiving
that
at
these
kind
of
messages.
So
we
written
a
draft
about
this
and
we
think
maybe
this
working
group
is
a
good
home
for
this
and
I
would
like
people
to
read
it
and
comment
on
it,
and
maybe,
if
you
have
pointers
for
related
work,
that
would
be
great
as
well.
Thank.
B
You
all
so
this
is
the
preceding,
so
you
can
see
the
name
of
the
brass
and
comment
on
this.
Thank
you
and
another
pitch
is
like
for
the
dynamic
GRE
tunnel
mechanism,
so
this
is
presented
at
the
last
meeting,
and
so
it
hasn't
got
like
much
comments
and
the
authors
would
like
to
try
to
solicit
more
comments
on
it.
So
please
read
the
draft,
so
I'll
send
a
pointer
to
the
list.
B
D
A
E
Hello,
everyone
Joe
touch
couldn't
be
here,
so
you
get
to
listen
to
me.
This
is
a
document
that
he
and
I
started
Oh
about
ten
years
ago.
It
went
through
various
iterations,
it
SAT
around
sort
of
dead
for
a
while,
and
then
it
was
resurrected.
I'm
gonna
go
over
just
in
case.
You
haven't,
read
it
or
have
it
read
it
recently,
I'm
gonna
go
through
real,
quick,
the
main
idea,
and
then
maybe,
if
we
have
time
for
questions
lots
of
questions,
we
all
love
to
build
tunnels.
E
E
We
got
dr.
black
there.
What
goes
in
must
come
out
of
a
tunnel
and
oftentimes.
You
don't
have
any
idea
what's
going
on
to
your
packets,
while
they're
in
transit
inside
the
tunnel,
which
is
most
of
both
the
feature
and
a
bug,
depending
on
what
you're
trying
to
do,
but.
E
Tunnels
must
be
designed
in
such
a
way
that
we
can
fit
what
we
want
to
put
in
put
in
them
very
carefully.
Sorry,
I
hate
not
having
a
lapel
mic
mark
pick
it
up
pick
up
the
mic,
cuz
I've
moved
too
much.
I
can
hold
it
now,
I
feel
like
I'm
doing
karaoke
Oh.
E
All
right
tunnels
must
be
designed
to
fit
what
we
want
to
put
in
them,
and
that
means
when
they're,
when
carrying
IP,
we
actually
look
like
a
link
layer
attached
to
a
router.
It's
a
very
important
point
in
the
sort
of
fundamental
tunnel
model
described
in
the
beginning
of
this
document
when
we're
using
IP.
So
if
we're
encapsulated
inside
IP
or
somehow
put
what
we
want
to
tunnel
inside
an
IP
packet,
we're
looking
like
a
network
layer
and
we're
also
looking
like
a
host
because
we're
the
source
and
the
sink
for
those
IP
packets.
E
So
we're
sort
of
this
half
half
thing
and
by
the
way
this
is
recursive
and
if
you
want
to
be
able
to
make
it
recursive
forever,
you
have
to
be
very
pure
in
your
emulation
of
the
link
layer
above
or
the
network,
acting
as
a
network
layer
between
your
endpoints.
So
basically,
it
kind
of
looks
like
this
there's
three
links
here.
One
of
them
is
well
three
named
links
here.
One
is
your
traditional
link
and
again
it
looks
like
a
router
here.
E
E
And
then
we
understand
that,
based
upon
the
operational
environment
based
upon
hardware
characteristics
based
upon
the
service
of
the
tunnel
itself,
delay
the
traffic
that's
going
to
be
running
over
that
tunnel,
it
might
break
down
from
that
basic
fundamental
concept
and
we
try
to
go
through
and
document
how.
The
that's
happened
with
a
variety
of
different
types
of
tunnels,
so
that
this
can
kind
of
be
an
instructive
aid
for
protocol
designers
operators
etc.
So
we
had
the
complete
revision.
E
Lately,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion,
particularly
about
him
to
you,
and
Fred
will
be
discussing
I
suppose
we'll
bring
that
up
when
he
talks
about
him
to
you
later
and
in
the
meeting,
and
this
is
our
to-do
list,
so
we've
got
a
variety
of
things
that
have
come
up
on
list.
Thank
you
for
the
discussion.
Please,
please
bring
more
in
particular
on
the
list,
so
that
Joe
can
hear
it
he's
been
doing
most
of
the
heavy
lifting
on
this
document.
E
I've
been
now
doing
pretty
pictures
and
discussing
it,
and
maybe
even
on
the
next
before
the
next
IDT.
If
I'll
do
some
real
live
edits
on
it,
but
anything
on
list
is
helpful
because
joe
gets
to
see
it.
We
have
some
questions
about
how
this
relates
to
existing
rfcs.
This
is
an
informational
document
from
picasa
vola
that
we
sort
of
expound
upon
do
we
need
to
update
2473
here,
etc
and
there's
various
clarifications
that
are
in
the
queue.
E
B
F
David
black
is
transferred
area
working
group
chaired
TSU
WG,
so
I've
had
discussion
offline
with
Joe
and
want
to
pass
along
the
conclusion.
There
are
various
kinds
of
tunnels.
This
draft
is
about
IP
in
IP
tunnels,
which
in
particular
is
why
you
heard
mark
talk
about
it.
Looking
like
a
router,
there
is
another
class
of
tunnels,
there's
characterized
by
there's
UDP
in
the
shim.
These
have
caused
me
more
adventure
like
carrot
than
I
care
to
admit
over
the
near
past.
In
T
2g.
We
have
a
draft
on
UDP
guidelines.
It's
5405
bits.
F
We
are
putting
material
on
use
of
UDP
encapsulation
for
arbitrary
purposes.
Whatever
you
want
to
care,
if
you
want
to
carry
UDP
or
IP
lessons
learned
and
what
you
should
not
do
will
be
in
this
draft.
It
is
a
companion
to
the
tunnels,
draft
you're,
carrying
IP
and
IP.
This
is
draft
is
important
if
you're
using
UDP
5405.
This
is
important.
I
would
encourage
people
to
please
review
both
them.
We
think
that
before,
or
five
is
as
close
to
done,
let.
E
Me
ask
you
a
question:
actually
the
document
tries
to
capture
IP
foo
IP,
ok,
for
example,
in
lttp
tunnel
or
a
GRE
tunnel,
or
pick
your
favorite
yeah,
listen
tunnel
pick
your
favorite.
Whatever
that's
got
between
IP
has
something
between
the
IP
and
the
IP.
Well,
and
it
now
doesn't
mean
it
tries
to
also
include
all
the
UDP
and
considerations,
but
I
think
that
there's
a
little
bit
more
of
a
marriage
between
these
two
documents
that
maybe
you're
thinking
I
believe.
F
There's
a
marriage
between
ins
from
the
reason
I'm
standing
at
the
mic
and
in
here
and
I
blew
the
place
where
I
think
we're
drawing
line
is
as
follows:
IP
info
and
IP
is
the
folks
this
draft,
when
foo
is
UDP.
There
are
certain
things
about
UDP
that
you
must
understand.
For
example,
you
get
to
go
battle.
The
checksum
in
ipv6
networks,
that's
going
to
be
over
in
the
tsv
WG
draft.
In
addition,
everybody
and
their
brother
seems
to
encapsulate
you
name
it
in
UDP
over
IP,
the
joke.
E
G
Lee
Howard
so
I'm
not
sure
that,
on
the
list
of
things
to
do
is
actually
finish.
Writing
it
because
they're
an
awful
lot
of
placeholders
still
to
be
written.
Yes,
do
you
like
to
help
I'm
still
I'm
thinking
about
it,
but
my
concern
is
I'm
still
unclear
on
exactly
who
the
audience
for
this
document
is
I.
Think
you
said.
E
G
G
E
H
Fred
template
from
boy
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
the
UDP
is
one
example.
What
could
be
included
in
fool
yep,
so
the
document
that
David's
mentioning
if
they
try
to
say
the
same
things
I
think
they
keep
the
Virgin
dangerous
ways.
So
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
you
DP
and
food
is
one
of
the
examples
of
food
that
could
be
a
desolation.
That's.
E
F
Brock,
what
more,
what
Marx
said
if
you're
running
IP
in
in
in
for
over
IP,
then
this
draft
is
what
is
is
was
required,
including
telling
you
how
the
inner
I
enter
IP
behaves
considerations
specifically
UDP
and
considerations
that
would
apply
when
the
inner
payload
is
not
IP
go
in
the
twg
draft
and
that's
the
operating
that's
right.
Now
the
operating
a
a
demarcation
that
that
Joanne
I
worked
at
work
out
offline.
That's
that's!
What
we're
going
to
try
to
carry
forward.
F
A
Lucy,
album
Huawei
I
think
this
will
document
the
make
a
very
good
the
backward
compatibility
for
this
architecture
perspective,
seeing
ya
the
tunnel
form
alinka
for
this
overlay
Network.
However,
moving
forward,
there's
kind
of
an
application
doing
this
kind
of
metadata,
all
those
things
you
know
make
the
link
to
how
ammo
you
know
the
property
there
I.
A
E
Okay,
well,
links
have
been
around
for
a
long
time
and
they
look.
They
have
some
common
properties
to
them,
especially
when
you're
talking
about
how
they
express
themselves
in
the
adjacent
layer
of
IP.
If
we
want
to
expand
the
notion
of
what
a
link
is
then
I
suppose
this
thing
becomes
obsolete,
but
I
don't
think
that's
absolutely
necessary.
Hopefully
we
can
find
ways
to
incorporate
all
this
innovation
that
still
fits
into
the
basic
models
and
I
think
that
that's
possible.
Sometimes
it's
just
a
matter
of
semantics
to
get
that
right.
B
Thank
you
very
much
mark
okay.
So
people
please
review
this
document
and
send
reviews
on
the
list
like
Joe's,
not
at
the
meeting,
so
it'll
be
really
good.
If
everything
happens
on
this
and
the
authors
like
are
planning
to
do,
updates
not
on
the
idea
of
meeting
cycles,
but
between
cycles
to
increase
that.
So
thank
you
very
much
mark
and
thanks
Joe.
I
Thank
you
are
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Dan
Harkins
I'm,
not
Dorothy
Stanley.
She
couldn't
be
here
so
I'm
presenting
this
in
her
stead
of
sorry
for
the
weird
format
of
this.
This
is
a
I
Triple
E
document,
and
this
is
the
format
that
everybody
has
to
use.
What
we
don't
get
to
do.
Clever
pictures
like
mark
this
is
that's
all
right.
I
So
the
reason
I'm
doing
this
talk
is
because
those
a
meeting
between
some
I
Triple,
E
and
I
t
effers
and
the
ITF
errs
we're
asking
why
multicast
is
so
bad
on
wireless
and
wanted
know
a
little
bit
more
about
how
how
multi
cast
works.
So
this
is
the
agenda
I'll
just
plow
through
here
in
less
than
10
minutes,
so
just
an
overview
of
dot11,
so
it
operates.
I
An
unlicensed
frequencies
doesn't
have
a
clue,
civ
claim
on
the
on
the
medium
anybody
can
use
it
and
consequently,
baby
monitors
and
microwave
ovens
and
things
like
that
will
create
noise
in
the
medium
and
cause
collisions
cause
packet
losses
and
pack
up,
drops
I'm
sure
Evans
experienced
this
you're
walking
around
your
phone
or
something
you
walk
behind
this
steel-reinforced
pillar
and
hear
your
Wi-Fi
signal
drop.
So
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
ways
that
you
can
get
interference
and
pack
a
loss.
I
Nothing
to
note
in
that
11
unicast
traffic
is
acknowledged,
but
multicast
traffic
is
not
so
the
way
multicast
works
in
a.
Why
in
Wireless
is
that
the
AP?
Basically,
it's
tens,
the
wired
segment,
so
any
broadcast
or
multicast
traffic
on
the
wired
network
gets
a
sent
out
over
the
wireless
network
and
it's
transmitted
at
what's
called
the
Rose
most
robust
MCS.
The
MCS
is
the
modulation
and
coding
scheme,
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
in
the
modulation
coding
scheme.
I
In
addition
to
the
modulation
coding,
there's
this
probably
spatial
streams
you
can
have
and
the
channel
width
and
all
this
other
nonsense.
But
for
the
point
of
this
talk,
just
think
of
the
MCS
is
the
rate
that
the
packet
is
sent
out
at
as
I
mentioned,
the
multicast
traffic
is
not
acknowledged,
it's
not
retransmitted
and
this
MCS,
the
MCS
rate
it
sent
since
wireless
data
at
the
lowest
possible
rate,
because
it
doesn't
there
may
be
other.
I
There
may
be
many
clients
attached
to
the
access
point
and
they
have
to
send
it
out
at
the
rate
that
every
single
client
has
an
opportunity
to
receive.
So
the
problem
is,
you
could
be
having
some
stations
they're
transmitting
at
you
know,
600
megabits
and
along
comes
some
multicast
traffic
and
they
got
to
go
and
send
it
down
it.
I
You
know
six
megabits
and
what
happens
is
the
lower
the
rate,
the
larger
the
frame,
so
it
occupies
more
of
the
air
as
it's
being
sent
out,
and
that
means
that
there's
less
air
for
all
the
other
frames.
This
is
it's
a
contention
based
medium,
so
we
you
get
to
get
the
air.
You
say:
I
need
it
for
this
long
and
if
you're
sending
frames
that
are
very
low
right,
you
need
it
for
even
longer.
So
it
basically
just
pushes
out
all
the
other
traffic
there
are
has
been.
I
I
This
is
just
a
nice
way
to
keep
a
lot
of
broadcast
multicast
frames
or
at
least
broadcast
frames
off
of
the
off
of
the
air,
since
all
the
stations
are
connected
to
the
access
point,
the
access
point
knows
exactly
who's
there
with
their
mac
addresses
and
they
can
stay,
put
their
IP
addresses
and
do
proxy
arp
and
thereby
reduce
the
number
of
times.
You've
got
to
send
these
large
frames
at
a
low
rate
over
the
air,
and
this
is
the
part
of
the
standard
that
specifies
proxy
arp
and
it
does
exactly
what
you
imagine.
I
The
AP
is
just
acting
on
behalf
of
the
the
station
so
for
ipv6
it
does
the
same
thing
with
neighbor
discovery.
This
is
the
text
again
he's
based
in
again
it's
exactly
what
you'd
imagine.
The
AP
is
just
acting
on
behalf
of
the
station
and
are
responding
to
these
neighbor
neighbor
advertisement,
message
of
neighbor
solicitation
messages
and
basically
a
setting
these
things
out
on
behalf
of
the
client.
So
these
are
two
of
the
things
that
have
been
developed
at
eleven
to
improve
the
multicast
experience.
I
One
of
these
things
is
directed
multicast,
and
what
this
is
the
the
client
can
ask
the
AP
I
want
you
to
send
all
multicast
traffic
to
me
as
a
unicast,
and
this
works
nicely
because
again,
unicast
is
acknowledged
and
it's
not
going
to
be
buffered
up
for
one
station
goes
to
sleep.
The
problem,
though,
is
this
doesn't
scale
all
that?
Well,
you
can
imagine
if
you've
got
you
know
a
couple
hundred
stations
associated
to
an
access
point
and
they
all
want
to
say
send
me
multicast
traffic
is
unicast.
J
I
Another
enhancement
is
a
group
cast
with
retries.
What
this
does
is
it
allows
for
acknowledgement
of
multicast
traffic
and
it
actually
allows
for
block
acknowledgments,
so
a
bunch
of
multicast
traffic
and
be
sent,
and
you
can
get
a
block
act
back
saying
you
know.
I've
we've
received
this.
There
are
some
other
additions
to
what's
called
GCR.
One
of
them
is
the
unsolicited
retransmission.
So
basically,
what
happens
is
the
AP
if
it
wants
to,
you
can
send
multiple
copies
of
the
same
frame
to
ensure
that
it's
received
by
everybody.
I
Another
thing
is:
there's
a
GCR
with
a
periodic
sending
of
multicast.
So
what
happens
is
if
there's
power
saved
clients?
Gcr,
oh
with
the
it's
SP.
What's
SP
series
something
anyway.
If
there,
if
a
client
goes
into
power-save,
basically,
the
client
is
dictating
when
traffic
will
be
sent
out
on
the
medium,
but
with
GC
RSP.
What
happens
is
the
AP
says
I,
don't
care
when
you're
going
to
sleep
I'm
sitting
out
multicast
traffic
in
in
this
period?
I
He
then
has
to
send
out
a
block
act
request
and
wait
to
get
a
block
act
response
before
he
decides
to
send
any
more
traffic,
so
that
entails
some
latency,
because
traffic
is
going
to
get
buffered
up
while
he's
waiting
for
his
black
acknowledgement.
There's
some
work
being
done
right
now
in
another
task
group
in
about
11
to
enhance
this
using
multi-user
MIMO.
That's
basically,
I
have
multiple
radios
in
or
in
the
in
the
clients,
and
so
they
can
basically
send
the
request
in
the
downlink
and
get
the
the
Act
back
in
the
uplink.
I
So
it's
things
can
happen
without
what
is
much
latency
I
guess,
one
of
the
things
that
the
IETF
is
were
asking.
The
I,
Triple
E
was
a
what's
been
implemented
and,
sadly,
there's
nothing.
We
can
do
to
make
people
implement
features
in
the
standard
any
more
than
you
can
make
people
implement
in
an
RFC
proxy
arp
and
proxy
neighbor
discovery
have
been
implemented
widely
for
enterprise-grade
systems.
But
you
know,
if
you
go
by
an
access
point,
that
your
local
frys
or
you
know,
whatever
your
local
country's
equivalent
of
a
electronic
store.
I
K
K
I
That's
what
this
this
GCR
thing
was.
It
was
the
way
Todd
11
works
as
they
were.
They
form
a
group
too,
and
they
make
an
amendment
to
amend
the
standard
and
the
group
that
amended
the
poochies
yarin
was
dedicated
towards
video
streaming,
so
the
the
GCR
implementation
I
saw
they
were
doing
a
high
def
video
and
it
it
looked
great,
so
they
have
been
doing
that.
But
again,
unfortunately,
I
don't
know
anybody
that
actually
sells
product.
That
does
it
does
this,
but.
I
J
Zone
to
the
perspective
of
somebody
trying
to
make
trade-offs
between
unicast
and
multicast
a
couple
of
questions.
You
said
that
you
know
unicast
might
be
100
times
slower.
Sorry,
balti
class
might
be
a
hundred
times
slower
than
unicast.
Perhaps
I
don't.
I
Mystics,
oh,
oh,
that
was
just
an
example
of
if
you've
got
a
station,
that's
a
when
they
connect
their
they're
at
different
MCS
rates,
and
you
want
to
optimize
for
speed,
and
so,
if
you're,
if
you
can
get
a
higher
MCS
right,
if
you
could
do
600
megabits
you're
going
to
try
and
get
600
megawatts.
But
the
problem
is
when
a
multicast
frame
that
arrives
well,
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
600,
Ackley
100
or
it
could
be
54
mega
bits.
The
issue
is
that
multicast
c-can
we
sent
out
at
the
lowest
possible
MCS,
so.
I
J
Know
so
suppose,
suppose,
for
example,
that
I
had
a
multicast
packet,
it
was
slow
and
I
wanted
to
send
it
to
a
lot
of
people.
How
many
people
does
it
need
to
go
to
before
it's
worth
sending
it
out
multicast
as
opposed
to
unicast,
because
if
it's,
for
example,
if
it's
simply
a
hundred
times
slower,
then
it
have
more
than
a
hundred
devices
on
the
link.
Multicast
is
better
than
unicast,
very,
very
simple.
J
I
J
A
good
answer,
because
I
don't
want
to
chew
up
the
unit
cost.
You
know
if
I've
got
20,000
hosts
on
my
on
my
link
and
I
want
to
send
an
RA
to
all
of
them.
Unicast,
that's
gonna,
chew
up
the
channel
for
a
very
long
time,
because
they're
all
acknowledged
and
if
I
send
out
on
a
multicast
are
a
you
know,
might
as
well
10
10
or
10
of
them
in
the
same
bandwidth,
and
it's
actually
saving
on
channel
time.
J
Even
if
they're
not
acknowledged
the
probability
of
one
of
them
getting
through
is
very,
very
high.
So,
okay,
so
okay,
we
don't
know
so.
Another
question
is
like
what
is
the
efficiency
rate
for
a
lot
of
this
stuff
is
for
big
packets.
What
is
the
like?
Assuming
look
like
a
lot
of
the
control
protocol,
stuff
that
in
ipv6
uses
that
uses
multicast
of
small
packets?
How
is
this
sort
of?
J
I
J
I
J
D
I
D
D
That's
relation
commit
patterns
in
that
case,
while
we
can
be
better
what
you
said
about
that,
what's
the
size
of
the
green
really
makes
sense
at
all,
and
we
have
the
usage
pattern
is
which
we
send
a
question
to
everybody,
because
we
want
to
reach
somebody
and
that's
a
pattern
that
actually
sucks
and,
and
that
pattern
is
where
is
something
we
should
take
on
in
the
interior,
because
I
mean
we
could
achieve
the
same
result
which
I
don't
know
DHT
or
something
like
that
and
which
will
be
using
unicast?
Okay.
I
Thing
like
safe:
if
you
take
anything
from
this
presentation,
it's
not
a
hundred
x,
you
could
have
people
speaking
at
a
gigabit
and
you
send
out
a
frame
at
six
megabits
or
you
could
have
everybody
speaking
at
six
megabits
and
you
send
a
frame
out
at
six
megabits
right.
So
the
the
point
is
that
multi
gasket
sent
out
at
the
lowest
possible
rate
and
if
you
got
a
whole
bunch
of
people
speaking
at
high
rates,
then
that's
going
to
be
proportionally.
Suckier,
okay,.
A
Michael
Lorenzen
here
I
went
to
the
I
Triple
E
about
this.
There
is
a
non
working
group
mailing
list
you
being
formed
to
handle
this.
Please
join
this
list.
Let's
get
it
worked
out,
what
di
trick
they
should
do
and
what
they
attempt
to
do.
There
is
a
lot
of
things
to
do
here
and
to
consider
we're
not
going
to
solve
here
in
the
deadly.
Please
will
be
created
and
will
be
announced
in
the
interior
and
all
the
other
relevant
groups.
A
I
know
there's
work
in
the
600
also
related
that
solving
some
of
these
issues,
and
so
so
we
really
want
to
take
a
look
from
both.
I
triple
e,
an
ietf
side,
their
solutions,
there's
what
has
been
specified,
what
has
been
implemented,
what
has
been
deployed-
and
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
education
to
be
done.
So
please
do
join
that
list
if
you're
interested
in
this
topic
so.
H
H
H
H
But
here
we
have
some
alternative
one
issues,
things
like
the
ipid
being
too
short,
and
things
like
that
that
make
it
owners
in
some
such
situations
you
cannot
have
alternative
to,
in
which
case
you
tunnel,
you
fragment
the
inner
packet.
When
that
happens,
you
have
the
encapsulation
header
appearing
in
each
fragment,
and
the
only
problem
with
this
is
that
it's
only
allowed
for
ipv4
alternative
3
is
what's
called
tunnel
fragmentation
with
the
tunnel
fragmentation.
H
Today,
and
there
are
two
drafts-
the
first
proposes
adding
a
fragment
header
to
the
GRE
header.
The
second
proposes
adding
a
fragment
header
to
the
gue
header.
Both
of
these
are
examples
of
tunnel
fragmentation.
The
original
concept
was
actually
discussed
in
RFC
2764
and,
as
Mark
Townsley
mentioned
to
me,
it's
also
done
in
pwf
tunneling,
that's
head.
K
So
I
would
go
through
this
quickly,
but
the
whole
purpose
is
standing
up
here
is
to
get
you
guys
to
set
mail
on
the
mailing
list.
So
since
most
of
you
are
reading
mail
anyhow,
you
might
as
well
go
do
that
now
AB
so
because
this
is
out
for
the
question
is
whether
we
should
adopt
this
as
a
work
of
your
document
and
I'm
going
to
try
to
give
you
some
motivation
if
I
can
figure
out
the
direction
of
these
arrows.
So
so
so.
Why
should
we
care
about
this
this
issue?
K
It
might
be
that
we
will
run
into
more
issues
here,
because
people
will
want
more
redundancy
out
of
the
network.
There
is
something
that
applies
both
in
the
ipv4
and
ipv6
space.
So
let
me
illustrate
what
one
of
the
key
issues
is
in
this
this
space
and
if
you
didn't
catch
it
on
a
title
slide,
it
shows
up
to
some
extent
in
dsl
and
in
cable
they
tend
to
have
a
simpler
topology.
The
most
complex
one
is
what
private
viewings.
K
So
you
have
some
form
of
topology
hear
that,
from
the
perspective
of
IP,
looks
like
a
single
sub.
Not
so
IP
thinks
that
this
is
one
subnet.
It
could
be
before
and
or
v6
right,
but
then
it's
been
partitioned
and
in
this
case
there's
two
routers
that
are
connected
to
this.
So
you
have
some
setup.
You
know
some
sort
of
hosts
that
can
talk
within
their
communities
at
layer
2.
K
So
when
people
want
to
deploy
this
and
actually
want
to
have
some
control
of
our
host
parking
to
host
end
up,
deploying
it
with
some
prox
Europe
set
up
in
neurology
and
when
there's
a
single
router,
this
is
not
very
complicated,
but
in
this
example,
there
is
like
a
dual
router.
So
you
know
be
in
this
case.
Host
3
sends
out
an
arc
across
four
hosts
for,
and
it
thinks
it's
because
it's
things
that
directly
connected
well,
it
doesn't
go
directly
at
layer
2,
it
gets
dropped
on
the
floor
by
the
VLAN
filtering.
K
It
gets
delivered
to
both
router
one
and
router
to
they've
been
set
up
to
proxy
arp.
This
thing
and
the
the
host
might
get
to
our
perp
lies
back
right,
but
then
it
can
actually
send
packets
in
the
pockets,
make
it
to
the
router
the
roddick
in
and
have
policies
to
decide
whether
it's
going
to
let
this
packet
through
or
not,
or
you
know,
filter
it
out
based
on
something
but
the.
K
K
They
exactly
sent
down
to
host
to
host
one
on
host
to
as
well,
but
it
basically
gets
sent
up
flooded.
Everybody
sees
it,
but
rather
to
seize
it
as
well,
and
rather
too
has
been
configured
to
proxy
arp
for
that
address
right.
So
now
you
could
actually
have
that
body
one
and
rather
two
ends
up
sending
that
packet
back
and
forth
to
each
other,
and
there
is
some
description
I
found
in
some
obscure
email
from
a
while
back
where
people
said.
K
Well,
if
you
do
this
stuff,
it
seems
like
people
who
are
making
I
don't
know
if
that
was
in
the
context
of
hsrp
setting
it
up,
so
that
if
the
packet
ARP
request
came
from
rado,
one
rather
two
should
not
procure
up
respond,
but
this
is
not
written
down
anywhere
where
people
can
actually
find
it.
So
so
that's
sort
of
a
key
thing
that
can
actually
break
in
these
networks
and
that's
the
overall
motivation
for
you
to
go,
read
this
document
and
say
whether
they
should
be
working.
Your
document
or
not
thanks.
B
M
Hello,
everyone
I'm
workhard
I'm,
going
Jim
from
Holly
and
because
also
we
were
to
not
to
come
here
so
I
have
her
to
choose
a
plantation.
Oh,
this
plantation
is
about
a
young
model,
oh
gee,
I
dunno.
So
the
motivation,
definitions,
first
date,
definitions,
the
data
model
for
gie
completion
and
amanda
manager
and
young
presents
a
very
popular
choice
for
completion
and
the
moment
asking
what's
the
address
in
revealing
0.
Firstly,
we
define
the
young
deal
model
based
on
oxy
278
forth
and
defines
the
young
data
model
based
on
oxy
to
80
90.
M
It's
mainly
for
the
key
and
sequence
new
number
of
this
of
the
genus
kelitha
finder
and
the
divine
young
data
model
based
on
ave
c
2-6,
7-6
6,
which
for
ipv6
and
the
ab
c
2
futaba
each
what's
not
addressed
in
the
revision
0.
The
frosting
is
the
winter
Priory
primary
features
and
not
in
this
group
and
in
future
sinker
is
that
the
winter
king
could
be
supported
at
we
could
be
supported
the
window.
Priority
features
by
augment.
The
second
is
the
data
information
which
will
be
added
in
the
next
revision
revision
when
the
Yamato.
M
What
a
what
a
the
content
of
the
Yamato
pasta
is:
a
supported
delivery
protocol
configuration
a
second,
there
is
a
path
MTU,
an
evil
entity,
support
and
further
been
teaching
anybody
see
Bo
and
that
checksum
enable/disable,
another
key
enable/disable
anarchy,
video
completion
and
a
support
of
the
sequence.
Number
enable/disable
here
is
the
hierarchy
of
the
Yamato
theta.
M
B
You
very
much
again
so
like
this
work
is
here
because
there's
not
a
home
for
this,
like
the
GRE
extension
stuff,
so
I
think
we
will
have
to
discuss
the
eighties
like
on
how
to
proceed
with
this
there's
like
10
on
off
or
two
off
its
ok,
but
there's
like
lot
of
documents
coming
through,
so
we
probably
had
to
discuss
the
deities
like
how
to
go
forward
to
this.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
B
N
N
Ok,
so
the
IP
tunnel
actually
came
from
merged
rats
and
we
had
sweet
we're
having
a
discussion
about
how
again
how
you
want
to
look
at
tunnels
right
now.
There
are
two
ways
of
looking
at
tunnels:
one
is
sort
of
tight
and
the
other
is
not
so
the
the
one
on
the
right
is
or
left
this
it's
separate
list.
N
Each
list
has
a
only
consist
of
a
single
type
of
tunnels
and
the
other
one
is
obviously
a
single
tunnel
that,
with
all
kinds,
a
single
list
with
all
kinds
of
tunnels,
so
their
consequences
of
doing
things
like
doing
things
different
differently.
I'll
show
you
that,
and
there
are
also
in
implementations
of
doing
things
differently.
N
The
first
difference
is
the
naming
of
the
tunnels,
because
the
separate
list
is
tight,
you
can
you
get.
You
can
have
a
you
know
the
first
type
of
tunneling
I
guess
it's
hard
to
see,
but
this
is
ipv4
in
ipv4
it
that
is
named
tunnel
one,
and
here
you
also
have
ipv6
ipv4,
that's
made
tunnel
one,
whereas
you
can't
do
this
in
this
other
organization.
N
The
the
other
consequence
and
other
consequence
is
that
when
you
want
to
change,
there's
actually
a
line
right
there,
but
it's
when
you
want
to
change,
for
example,
an
ipv4
and
ipv6
in
ipv6
tunnel.
What
you
have
to
do
is
explicitly
remove
this
tunnel
and
then
create
that
the
the
second
tunnel
second
type
type
of
tunnel,
whereas
again
with
the
other
organization,
you
kind
of
the
back
and
implicitly
does
that
way.
N
N
A
B
O
Per
question
yeah,
you
may
want
to
look
at
how
the
IP
tunnel
lib
works,
where
the
management
area
already
tackled
make
sure
actually
in
turn
it
off,
but
they
already
tackled
this
problem
there,
where
you
have
one
generic
model
and
then
extensions
that
are
on
a
tunnel
protocol
by
tunnel
protocol
specific
type,
and
so
you
put
all
the
generic
stuff
in
one
place
and
you
extend
another
ones,
and
so
my
recommendation
would
be
try
to
follow
that
as
close
as
possible.
Given
that
that's
already
a
standard,
okay.
B
B
P
Basically,
the
idea
is
that
we
wanted
to
provide
a
logical
link,
control
interface,
definition
for
attitude
up
15
dot
4,
and
this
is
relevant
to
several
efforts
in
the
ITF
and
subbed
and
the
earlier
this
week,
I
Tripoli
IETF
coordination
committee.
That
was
suggested
that
she
should
be
presented
in
this
group
int
area
to
head
to
a
wider
audience,
instead
of
just,
for
instance,
sixth
ish.
P
So,
basically,
what
has
happened
is
that
this
year
earlier
in
the
spring,
there
was
an
interest
group
forum
for
the
purpose
of
seeing
weather
related
to
that
15
would
like
to
provide.
They
make
an
effort
to
make
this
LLC
in
this
interest.
Group
in
July
indeed
stated
they
voted
to
form
a
study
group,
and
the
purpose
of
the
study
group
is
to
create
a
project
definition
in
justification.
P
P
So
since
we
have
the
group-
and
since
it's
of
interest
in
IETF
Here
I
am
we
want
to
discuss
the
goals
and
try
to
find
out
what
kind
of
feedback
we
can
bring
back
for
discussion
next
week,
I
presented
this
information
just
last
time
in
sick
station,
so
it
has
relevant
comments
from
them
as
well.
So
what's
the
goal
of
the
study
group?
P
So,
as
a
result,
since
those
functions
are
not
specified,
some
people
have
found
it
to
be
more
difficult
to
use
and
then
it
also
seems
to
encourage
proprietary
solutions,
but
in
particular
it's
also
the
case
that
the
group's
an
ietf
need
to
make
use
of
some
functions
like
what
would
be
in
the
LLC.
And
so
that's
that's
why
we
want
to
make
sure
that
I
TF
is
able
to
benefit
from
this
effort.
So,
in
addition
to
the
other
functions
are
within
80
2015,
there's
some
layer
to
routing
and
KMP
for
security
key
management.
P
P
We
have
here
several
kinds
of
mac
protocols
and
numerous
five
protocols,
and
this
LLC
should
sit
on
top
of
that
and
make
all
of
the
functions
that
are
necessary,
including,
for
instance,
adaptation
for
ipv4
and
b6
available
as
such
as
standardized
LLC.
We
have
six
tish
here
and
there's
some
sort
of
best
effort
protocols
and
deterministic.
Sixth
ish
is
an
example
of
deterministic
Minerva,
low
energy
solutions
and
so
on,
and
also
non
IP.
So
from
the
standpoint
of
802
dot,
15,
there's
a
number
of
potential
customers
and
nevertheless,
ITF
is
a
very
important
potential
customer.
P
So
one
is,
it
would
be
something
like
an
ether
type
to
allow
dispatch
to
our
level
protocols,
and
we
want
to
have
this
make
visible
the
attitude
up.
15,
9
and
10
on
layer.
2
routing
provide
the
link
control
for
that
and
also
to
allow
extensibility
in
the
future
so
that
you
can
define
a
function
by
using
the
features
of
this
LLC
without
having
to
do
it
separately
for
every
different
mac
and
five
protocol
regulatory
configuration.
P
If
you'd
like
to
be
able
to
avoid
having
to
do
separate
solutions
for
every
mac
and
five
diff,
no
matter
which,
in
other
words,
take
care
of
the
regulatory
considerations
within
this
this
layer
and
then
also
well.
We
have
obviously
going
on
protocol
extensions
from
other
organizations
in
particular
idea.
P
So
that's
pretty
much
the
quick
description
of
the
effort
here
I
put
in
super
fine
print
that
you
can
go.
Look
at
a
longer
presentation
and
you
can
see
all
this
stuff
from
the
LLC
group
by
going
mentor
is
a
document
auditory
for
all
the
well
for
a
whole
lot
of
groups,
but
judge
me
in
particular
802
wireless
and
so
our
repository.
If
you
go
to
this,
but
URL
you'll,
see
that
you
can
pick
out
the
group
and
if
you
pick
out,
LLC
you'll
see
our
documents
for
that
next
week.
P
We're
meeting-
and
we
have
already
the
project
requests
in
the
feasibility
report
so
though
so
we'll
be
refined
and
then,
if
all
goes
well
in
January,
we'll
look
at
that
again
and
submit
that
for
consideration
by
the
executive
committee
which
meets
again
in
March.
So
this
is
really
the
first
time
when
there
could
be,
you
might
say,
an
officially
chartered
task
group
to
make
this
LLC,
but
that
doesn't
mean
you
will
just
sit
around
waiting
until
then.
I
think
that
the
time
is
now
to
to
do
work
on
this.
P
The
subject
in
particular
in
66
top,
is
already
have
a
lot,
a
lot
of
definition
of
work,
and-
and
so
we
expect
to
take
some
involvement
in
reviewing
that
as
well.
What
else
oak?
So
we
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do
soon
and
we
don't
have
to
wait
till
2017,
but
the
way
it
goes
with
a
802
wireless
is
we
have
many
many
comments,
usually
on
the
the
document
and
the
specification,
and
they
will
all
have
to
be
resolved,
and
so
we'll
see
what
the
sort
of
process
that's
followed
to
do
that.
P
K
P
K
P
A
G
Thanks
for
bringing
this
to
us
Charlie
to
give
us
an
opportunity
to
anticipate,
what's
going
on?
Oh
the
very
first
slide,
you
said
something
along
the
lines
of
oh
okay:
use
of
higher
level
protocols
without
changes,
no
I'm.
Sorry,
it's
the
bullet
up
from
that
make
it
easy
easy
to
use
as
802
11,
8023,
Wi-Fi
and
ethernet.
Does
that
mean
the
the
underlying
network
characteristics?
The
the
sort
of
network
characteristics
provided
to
IP
will
look
just
like
Wi-Fi
and
ethernet
no.
P
It
doesn't
mean
it,
and
actually
this
is
a
an
editing
error
by
me.
The
intention.
Basically,
what
I
should
have
wanted
to
express
was
that
already
the
what
people
are
able
to
use
ATT,
911
and
802
dots
3,
without
changing,
depending
upon
the
underlying
characteristics,
for
instance,
of
80
2011,
and
we
want
to
have
they
wrote
about
15
dot
for
share
that
kind.
O
G
Okay,
is
that
explained
in
more
detail
in
the
the
presentations
because
there's
a
whole?
Does
it
in
different
ways?
You
could
do
that,
but
so,
for
example,
will
this
LLC
if
I
have
a
mesh
of
80
to
15
4
nodes
with
this
LLC?
Well,
that
all
looked
like
a
single
link
and
I
and
I
can
I
can
essentially
consider
get
from
any
device
on
that
mesh
to
any
other
device
in
one
hop
I?
Don't
it's
not
forwarding
through
the
inner
I
p
forwarding
through
the
intermediate
devices.
G
B
Can
you
so
I
think
like
crowds
question,
it's
like
it's
explained
in
more
detail
so
like
can
you
look
at
the
slides
and
send
a
pointer
to
ralphs
on
the
list
about
like
okay?
If
it's
answer
Sandler
like
because
there's
a
longer
version
of
the
slight
said
that
he
pointed
to
I,
think
I'll
sue
question
is:
is
it
being
explained
somewhere,
but.
P
That
the
longer
set
of
slides
is
not
answering
your
question
and
I
know
what's
in
there
and
so
the
exact.
Obviously
we
don't
have
the
LLC
yet
because
we
haven't
actually
started
working
on,
but
we
had
some
places
to
start
from
and
the
specific
answer
to
your
question.
First,
as
you
might
want
to
say,
you
want
to
have
a
mesh
that
is
associated
with
the
pan
ID
or
something
like
that,
and
we
don't
have
that
information
yet.