[Bier] BIER WG Minutes, IETF 95
Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Fri, 15 April 2016 13:57 UTC
Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81B612E276 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id helRjrHLMG6i for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1287412E1E3 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id s79so124634555oie.1 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=uE5l1fsRq6oubcwTy7t63LthwO6DfJ9Z0W3eVyuTnqM=; b=uayWHtnV05Wb9jrHvFvdvr4jKbZrl+51cz+05QGg/uoCoTbw+dusksUuv/pMWZZt68 kf+VCUgITtKK4T+2gMPEmRIiI+dDVmCUTdhfjA1D34eEz+gqHF23pcwl2YBymKeMvJBw KTy8IwQwiSvzcFSMWVGo70zodB88qmMmP6gYsaYbUju8azmHkjJQIHqDxAPjE3wudNZp eFJLMcWiBe6w9v6q387IFyT+PTA+//P27vZe8HnGF4vPUTOKDQJSh+lU8nYamoljhSB0 0T2F8nBdABDRmwP+20VS7/Z0FalwBo+Do5kExgwnqUgEVmOaKuXH+o8cqY7raF0Hwned QAWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject :from:to; bh=uE5l1fsRq6oubcwTy7t63LthwO6DfJ9Z0W3eVyuTnqM=; b=SAfp+PwaM0/mo4KqV/lRnEv6GfzHITeIM/H33Cbu0AAIdlb4AbYWdjBVpAYsuKdRMx Y9b0UkWcomSRn3PWz6NmYOZapzSUhQAaTCg6NmHaIcnlIvTv2E3OpMP2bil2XpkF2eN7 e5zw1npWg/klWxZ2fpmY4ZguER8bK/2Vt6mUQNRpqkDCPxTiX799h/B+c4zeVyz+RwtY WZpDIKmIQ0DqZi+cfjAlw+uGdVhom+0NISB2IZVe4JyiZoami54EcP4fLdbyIaknP6sN cvnREZuqRwV0L9KqacX/kDDIX+zerwJ/OHdNb3IZhUW3nu8x602A2lBsbtNn2VIg9KXQ fqHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUpWG7do5Jl9LVRBMmYK0JOEFNtlnmZBlDyTWrXr/apN+dn4B/WjSmsX/qOOY4pgAWE56m+HFUjJ15MzQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.234.135 with SMTP id i129mr10161670oih.10.1460728658261; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.157.9.136 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 06:57:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABFReBp2=wU89a22Cuv-_NFMQChcCLbQGcdoydgLk=mNv+5gnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d395ec9fcd8053086642a"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/330GCtCnrclcjUi1MjfCSbEtA_8>
Subject: [Bier] BIER WG Minutes, IETF 95
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:57:41 -0000
Thanks to Tony for the excellent minutes. Please read and reply with corrections. They will be submitted soon. Thanks, Greg ---minutes--- BIER Meeting Minutes Exec Summary: OAM, Yang towards adoption, core drafts moving well towards LC, security still missing, discussion whether it should moved into standards track - Note Well - Greg: Yang: only points of contention and progress to be reported - towards last call, last point of contention scope of flooding of BIER info - no questions - Eckert: Biert-TE: - new co-authors - FRR: modifying bit mask as local decision and rerouting the packet - Mirsky: how do you differentiate between link & node failure ? can’t, like RSVP, probably either/or - subdomains - concerns about applying term of SI to BIER-TE - new terminology will be introduced and mappings analyzed - suggestion of introduction of slices (single bit with its own label) - Andrew/ALU: Is that of any value ? don’t make it WG item - OAM: we have OAM & that runs over resilient layer and this is violating multi-layer network OAM recommendation - Diego ? : in physical topologies possibly valuable ? - chairs: please take out to list as “protection for BIER” discussion - chairs: split TE from the “protection” discussion and what do we adopt - Mirsky: Performance Measurement with marking in BIER - double marking method more advanced & preferable - call for WG adoption - rough consensus of readers to adopt - call will be taken to the list - chairs: delayed question: this does NOT prohibit use of OAM bits in different manner ? - unclear: discussion to be taken to the list whether we can imagine other uses of those OAM bits ? - Mirsky: BFD in BIER - part of larger piece of work from the “overlay OAM design team” - submitted to RTG WG - Sandy?: BIER Ethernet Encapsulation - call for adoption: - Chairs/Eckert: where is the discussion ? what are the use cases ? who will do the work - Alia: where are the use-cases, we also have a Wiki ? - Andrew: generate more interest - chairs: we can’t just let it sit or worse, standardize without review. - Greg: IEEE is not expensive ;-) Here’s a chance to get a 2.5 multicast solution - Alia: talk to Pat Tayler - Chair: comments been given on list about MAC addresses. This NEEDS review - Eckerd: Wiki too light ? - Alia: yes, f2f let’s figure out how we work together. Form the discussion anyway you want - David: Where are the DC people with use cases so the claims can be unsubstantiated. - Partha/Bloomberg: Sounds interesting - David/Mellanox: BML MUST be set on all encapsulations - chair: needs more input/discussion/collaboration before we call adoption - Sandy: BIER Use Case in NVO3 - Greg: is BIER overlay coordinated with NVO overlay ? BIER is a transport for NVO - Ran: Yang for BIER - chair: what’s the FRR in BIER ? - chair: great it’s validated, that’s real progress - Greg: ? - chair: should we call for adoption ? solid consensus for adoption. will be taken to the list - chair: FRR needs removed until we have consensus/WG items - Ran: BGP-LS for BIER - has been discussed with Peter, aligns with OSPF - weak consensus to call for adoption with no opposition. Will be taken to the list - Linda?/Path Autogeneration: - Chairs: read/comment - Linda?/BIER TE Yang Model: - Chair: Do not explain the model, highlight progress and issues - Greg: why not augment the base model ? BIER-TE fwd is very different ? But Yang is _configuration_ and _state_, fwd data plane paradigm is orthogonal to that. Question there are sufficient differences between the models here - Eckert/Cisco: ? - chair: get a doctor ? no. get a doctor. - Chair: Should we aim for Standards Track ? What’s the Criteria ? - chair: we lack security - Alia: I need to look @ problem statement to address it further. - Documents. - being EXPERIMENTAL helped focus and speed - implementation status added ? experience how it’s used ? applicability ? - Robert Raszuk: we can’t get silicon vendors to implement because experimental (as Bloomberg input) so it’s chicken/egg problem. - Alia: but then get me more status/comments on list. It will touch _everything_ in the hourglass once it becomes PS. So consider this. - Robert: we’re looking BIER in overlay so we can even software. - Alia: so add use-case to document Vendor discussion: - MPLS draft should strongly MUST that the BML is set in the packet
- [Bier] BIER WG Minutes, IETF 95 Greg Shepherd