page 1  (1 pages)

Munich IETF August 1997 -- RSVP WG -- Bob Braden, ISI............ Page 1

RSVP Working Group Tuesday August 12, 1997 0900-1000

o Status Report: Bob Braden, Scott Bradner

o Tunneling Draft status: Lixia Zhang

o Future of RSVP Working Group -- Discussion

o Routing and Reservations: Roch Guerin

o RSVP Experience in Commercial Multimedia trials: Mark Bauer

5

30

10

10

5

AGENDA

Munich IETF August 1997 -- RSVP WG -- Bob Braden, ISI............ Page 2

o RSVP into Proposed Standard status Version 1 RSVP spec, ?MD5? Integrity, IPSEC, MIB

o RAPI -> XOPEN standard Draft in preparation

o RSVP [/Int-Serv] Implementation survey A substantial initial effort -- sent to rsvp-test. Thanks to:
Gene Gaines -- ggaines@generation.net Luca Salgarelli -- salga@cefriel.it

STATUS REPORT

Munich IETF August 1997 -- RSVP WG -- Bob Braden, ISI............ Page 3

o RSVP BOF: November 1993 (Houston IETF)

o RSVP WG first met: April 1994 (Seattle IETF)

o This is the 11th IETF at which the RSVP WG has met. (There was also one interim meeting).

o Charter: Version 1 RSVP -> Proposed Std 7/95

o Added: MIB, MD5, IPSEC specs

The RSVP Working Group

Munich IETF August 1997 -- RSVP WG -- Bob Braden, ISI............ Page 4

o Three RSVP/int-serv areas were spun off to other Working Groups: -- ISSLL
-- QOSR
-- Policy (mechanisms)

The RSVP Working Group

Munich IETF August 1997 -- RSVP WG -- Bob Braden, ISI............ Page 5

What?s Left Undone?

o Incomplete RSVP features: -- Diagnostic message (almost done) -- Tunneling (esp. IPv6?) -- Semantic fragmentation -- Better solution to KR-II problem -- Session grouping

o Several suggestions for extensions -- CIDR addressing -- Explicit routing -- ...

Munich IETF August 1997 -- RSVP WG -- Bob Braden, ISI............ Page 6

Bigger, Harder Issues

o ?RSVP doesn?t scale? (to large number of sessions)

Direct solution: aggregate RSVP & IS state in the ?middle? of the Internet.

>> Integrated Services with aggregated state is not a simple problem.

>> Still a research problem; not ready for IETF.

o Virtual Private Networks

By some definitions, fall into same category.