IETF 57 CCAMP Minutes

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Chairs  	   Doc status - Kireeti presented slides (could not keep notes on
all)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
GMPLS signaling for SONET/SDH - RF Ed Q
GMPLS Non-std SONET SDH features - killed
GMPLS RSVP support for overlay model - authors to respond to list comment
ASON requirments for signaling - one more update prior to straw poll WG last
call
Exclude routes ext to RSVP-TE - Adrian add appendices to describe usage
Routing ext to support GMPLS - Kireeti did update, planned mtg prior to WG
last call
			           - Number of docs stacked up based on this doc
OSPF ext in support of GMPLS - awaiting above
ASON routing rqmts - Design team created, members, milestones and schedule
to be posted to list
LMP - security section needs work
SONET/SDH
??
GMPLS recovery - Design team says ready for last call
GMPLS MIBs waiting on MPLS MIBs (Adrian - 99% complete)
GMPLS architecture - waiting on normative refs
GMPLS trace in RFC ed Q
Framework for GMPLS-based control of SONET/SDH - Informational

Several individual contribs and WG docs not covered. Would like to progress
the above mature docs.

Alanqar	   ITU SG15 Liaisons
--------------------------------
* Links to liasion statements in slides
* Focus is ASON signaling protocol and routing extensions
* Thanks extended to chair and invited experts
* Snapshot of approved and under development stds

* Signaling updates
	- G.7713 terminology alignment with G.8080
	- support for crankback
	- Call/connection separation
* Comments on G.7713 solicited
* No need to develop alternative solution

* Routing updates G.7715.1
	- Goal is consent in Oct 2003 Geneva
	- OSPF ext for ASON
	- Potential use of PNNI

* Addressing: signaling, control and management usage important
	- separate address spaces for control and management

* Auto discover G.7714.1
	- Further investigation initiated
	- Focus on type A (trail overhead)

* Arch for discover & control plane G.disc_arch
	- New scope/title for G.7716

* Management framework - new doc created in Chicago G.frame
	- Goal of consent by May 2004

No questions

Kireeti - ccamp needs to formal liaisons

Papadimitriou draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-01.txt
------------------------------------------------------
* Presented by Jerry Ash
* background, overview, issues presented
* History has created need for better communication
* Need to continue/ensure joint IETF/ITU-T working team
* Intention of draft is not to repeat G.8080, but to address additional
GMPLS signaling requirements to support ASON.
* Six broad areas of requirements
	 - Support for soft permanent connection capability
      - Support for call and connection separation
      - Support for call segments
      - Support for extended restart capabilities during control plane
        failures
      - Support for extended label usage
      - Support for crankback capability
      - Support for additional error cases
* Ensure that IETF & ITU-T work jointly on requirements & protocol
extensions, and evaluate signaling extensions included in G.7713.2.

* Another iteration and then WG last call
* Progress signaling extensions
* Routing is a seperate topic (from protocol extensions).
  Encourage joint work between ASON experts and IETF routing experts.
* No questions nor discussion
* ccamp folks should work jointly with ASON experts for issues with protocol
extensions.
* isis and ospf folks should work jointly with ASON experts on routi
* Kireeti will float draft of liaison next week for comment

Aboul-Magd	   draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-01.txt
------------------------------------------------------
* Could change title to "ASON discovery framework"
* Is a terminology "decoder ring" mapping ASON <-> GMPLS LMP terminology
	- includes port and component link types
* G.8080 has transport (data) and control plane discovery with separate
addresses (draft says name space and not address?)
* Proposed considering draft as WG document
	- A number of people had read this draft
	- not a broad consensus in support of this proposal
* Lyndon Ong - Good doc, need to resolve decoder ring comments.
* Jonathon Saddler - WG23 doc from ITU-T Chicago discusses some of
these issues
* Malcom Betts - Question on control/data plane addresses in ITU documentati
on. IP address in header, NHOP, PHOP have transport address.  Intent is to
clarify usage, if already done then no need to repeat.

Papadimitriou Protection and Recovery update
--------------------------------------------
* Presented by Dimitri
* Effort positioning, status and timing over past 1.5 years
* Scope: LSP protection, (pre-planned) LSP re-routing, dynamic LSP
re-routing
* Not covered: local recovery, M:N end-to-end LSP prot., crankback (ref. to
draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-06.txt)
* Summarized comments received
* Proposed acceptance as WG document
	- consensus was that this is ready
	- Kireeti - take to the list
* Discuss the extra traffic concept in a list thread
	- Dimitri will propose text to clarify this

Farrel	   draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-06.txt
------------------------------------------------
* Adrian Farrel presented
* Has been around for several years and this version is a major re-spin
	- May be more complex than single node/interface
	- Objective is to fail back to some intermediate point (e.g., region
boundary or loose route identified node)
	- Requirement from ASON ITU-T
	- New co-author, Arun Satyanarayana
* Summarize major changes in slides
	- long list of TLVs, but no adivce on which to include and when
* Wanted to start thread on list re: remaining issues - some very thorny
	- session attribute bits (all would be used by this draft)
	- too many TLVs, need to confirm all are actually required
	- right place to handle unnumbered bundles
	- Is this the right approach, or should RRO be used?
* Feedback solicited, resolve open issues
* Add pointer from ASON signaling since it is long (different from slide
presented)
* Kireeti: close on issues, bounce use of final 3 bits off MPLS WG
	- decide on approach (TLVs vs RRO) and with new charter decide on WG status
* Dimitri - What is the basic set of TLVs needed and then address larger
scope.
* Adrian - What is needed is implementation dependent. Need input from other
service providers.
* Kireeti: relate this to multi-area, multi-AS documents since a primary
application is setup failures in multi-region.
* Adrian: Need more explicity requirements from te-wg on crankback
requirements.

Kim	         draft-kim-ccamp-cc-protection-03.txt
---------------------------------------------------
* Presented by Young Hwa Kim
* Summarized survivability of control channels and neworks(from G.807)
	- assoc, non-assoc, quasi-assoc, in or out of fiber, SCN/ASTN
implementation
* Stated problem as no provision of protection features in current GMPLS
control plane
* Summarized requirements and functions for resilience of control plane
	- e.g., primary and secondary on separate fibers (shown in figure)
* Next steps: proposed refine/complete requirements, 	protocol
specification, WG document in 2003/2004

* Aboul-Magd: Are control channels visible to LMP? Why are current control
plane methods not sufficient? What are the deficiences?
* Kireeti: Control plane is an IP network, not trying to redesign IP
resiliency. Are some issues: is graceful restart sufficient? Need to
convince WG that there is a problem to resolve. Do this on the mailing list.
* Kim: Gigabit Ethernet has no protection, but SONET/SDH and Lamba network
does.
*  Malcom Betts - Control plane relies on IP network resiliency. G.8080 has
a number of resiliency considerations listed.

Rabbat	   draft-rabbat-optical-recovery-reqs-00.txt et al
--------------------------------------------------------------
* Summarized changes
* Solicited feedback
* Kireeti: Had requirements from te-wg, keep this as separate doc, start
thread on mailing list
* Draft stable, proposed adoption as WG draft
* Need more discussion on WG list

* soumiya-lmp-fault (not on agenda from Bonica)
-----------------------------------------------
* How we reduce message overhead slide
* Alex Zinin - Q: Is flooding done reliably? A: Yes. Need to include
acknowledgement messages when assessing complexity.
* Adrian: arrows on lhs (signaling) indicate a pair of messages for
signaling.
* Kireeti: Was discussion comparing signaling message vs sending flooding
messages. Signaling is often faster (contrary to stmt that it is slower).
Flooding has a hold down timer aspect, but signaling is faster. Issue with
using LSPs for flooding since they are link local - seems redundant with IGP
(OSPF, IS-IS). Usurps LMP for different purpose. Important point is that
flooding is slower, but fewer messages as compared with signaling.  Should
discuss further on list. Concerned about resolving problem of flooding
already solved in GP.
* Aboul-Magd: Same comment as Kireeti. Need to synchronize signaling and
routing. Don't understand why there is a need for this.
* Jonathon Saddler: Concern that message indicates a fiber cut and not
messages
for each affected LSP. A: Protection algorithms expect knowledge that nodes
know this mapping at a protection point. Issue is that nodes may not know
this mapping when multiple levels of indirection exist. Presenter requested
feedback on the list.
* Bonica: Take further discussion to the list.

Shiomoto	   draft-pil-ccamp-extra-lsp-00.txt
-----------------------------------------------
* Presented by Shimoto
* Brief overview of draft for shared mesh restoration
	- protecting LSP resource is reserved, but not cross-connected
	- extra class LSP can use this unused restoration capacity, which is
preemptable when needed for restoration (expected to be rare occurence)
	- problems: advertise available resources, LSP indications and preemption
in signaling, prevent unintended connections, also protect confidentiality
* Discuss comments from mailing list
	- can do using existing priority mechanisms where extra class has lower
holding priority than restoration LSP
	- complexity
	- soft preemption (not addressed in this draft)
* Solicit comments/feedback
* Proposed accepting this for ccamp wg
* Dimitri: Question re: soft preemption as document or charter? A: Propose
adding to charter.
* JP Vasseur: Elaborate on soft preemption. A: Need to describe concept in
this draft. Q: Are you aware of draft on soft preemption? A: No. Q: What is
to be done with existing mechanisms?
* Kireeti: Can be achieved with current mechanisms. Discuss on list.
Proposed action was for Dimitri/JP Vasseur to describe on list how this can
be done using existing mechanisms and Shiomoto to identify what is missing.

Papadimitriou draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-00.txt
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Presented by Deborah Brungard
* Address requirements in GMPLS ASON presented earlier
* Backward/forward compatible with GMPLS
* Agnostic to network UNI implementation
* Call/connection separation objects simply forwarded and not processed
* Described proposed mechanism for call/connection separation in detail
* Summarized other additional ASON functionalities
* Next version - add crankback signaling and call segments
* Solicting feedback
* Lyndon Ong: Requesting interpretation of "backward compatibility" 7713.2
interpretation is to carry an object if is not understood.
* Kireeti: Need liaison to ITU-T with comments on 7713, 7713.2, and ITU-T
liaisons and then decide how to progress this document.

Ali draft-zamfir-explicit-resource-control-bundle-01.txt
--------------------------------------------------------
* Presented by Zafar Ali
* Explicit Resrouce Control and Recording
	- Unbundled or bundled TE link type
	- Focus is case where component interface cannot be inferred from label
value
* Current spec supports unbundled case for LSP splicing uni- and
bi-directional
* Can support bundled case by specifying component ID for LSP splicing
* Cannot support bundled case for LSP splicing when forward and backward
component IDs are different in bi-directional
* Propose optional interface identifier ERO subobject to address this case
* RRO with label recording
	- could use to signal label values used within the bundle
	- cannot currently identify component interface used withing bundle
	- proposed solution is interface identifier RRO subobject, similar to above
* Propose accepting this as WG doc
* Kireeti: Missing element in taxonomy (matrix) of these approaches not
sufficient for WG adoption. Understand RRO case. What is motivation for ERO?
A: Could have case where component links are different where upstream and
downstream differ. Bundle draft says that up- and down-stream can differ. Q:
Why don't the local nodes assign this (and communicate selection in RRO). A:
Consideration is on egress specification of component ID. Don't understand
resistance.
* Kireeti: Post rationale to the list, beyond missing support in
taxonomy/martix for both RRO and ERO cases. If agreement, then can proceed.
* Swallow: Provider feedback is to keep up- and down-stream on same fiber
(pair).
* Dimitri: Can provide examples for RRO, but believes there will be few for
ERO. Please expand compatibility statement in the last section.

Choi	         draft-choi-gmpls-resource-mapping-00.txt
-------------------------------------------------------
*  Resource Mapping for GMPLS with Heterogeneous Interfaces
* Problem: Label format for optical interface defined, but specific mapping
rule is not
	- Identify fiber, waveband, and lambda labels
* Issue -1
	- Need aggregation for sharing in protection/restoration
	- Support mechanism similar to label stacking in electrical domain for
optical interfaces
* Issue -2
	- Logical resoure aggregation at switching interface - mapping, aggregation
	(examples given)
	- Miscellaneous other issues (unnumbered links, bundling, SRLG mapping,
signaling, routing)
* Is proposal acceptable to ccamp WG
* Kireeti: Some routing and signaling defined in hierarchy draft. Here,
FA-LSP adverstises aggregate into IGP. Asked presenter to state why this is
needed on the mailing list.

Fu		   draft-fu-ccamp-traceroute-00.txt
-----------------------------------------------
* Presented by Xiaoming Fu
* A Proposal for Generic Traceroute Over Tunnels
* A few issues with current GTTP draft
	- each hop supports GTTP
	- UDP issues: ports could be blocked by some ISPs, TTL=1, msg size>MTU
	- Reverse trace may not traverse same tunnel
* Summarized potential solutions described in draft based on NSIS
	- Based on two-layer NTLP and NSLP NSIS protocol model
	- Can reuse TCP and SCTP to deliver trace messages (address firewall issue)
	- NSIS discovery finds next (NSLP?) hop and uses traditional traceroute
between NSIS-enabled nodes
* Should issues & concepts be considered in traceroute/GTTP design
* Bonica (as individual contributor): Q: Does probe sent to destination
visit intermediate nodes forward or backward? A: Still investigating. Q:
Would have to use alert? A: No, signaling can used without routing alert.
Should discovery of next hop be separate from signaling. Q: Is trace control
or data plane? A: NSIS direction is discovering data path. Q: Will
intermediate routers pass w/o change? A: Yes, traditional traceroute does
this.

Chairs	   Wrap up
----------------------
* See you in Minneapolis.
* All presenters send slides to bonica and kireeti.


===========================================
Ronald P. Bonica       Ph: 703 886 1681
vBNS Engineering       page: 1 888 268 8021
Ashburn, Va.
===========================================
"An eye for an eye only ends up making
the whole world blind."
            -- Gandhi