[Idr] IDR interim on May 16th - webex, questions for meeting, and recordings.

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 13 May 2016 10:47 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F10C12B074 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 03:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.739
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 zy2eeZZ4FMMO for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 03:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (unknown [50.245.122.97]) (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 2904512B020 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 03:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.238;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:46:58 -0400
Message-ID: <008a01d1ad04$c63a77d0$52af6770$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008B_01D1ACE3.3F2A3760"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdGtA5N1fQH6ZeaQT8WhQMAKvH+1Fw==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BmsFu-miN0_SmEbuH36GPVLjJhw>
Subject: [Idr] IDR interim on May 16th - webex, questions for meeting, and recordings.
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:47:10 -0000

The time of the interim is 22:00-23:00 EDT on May 16th.  

 

The interim will discuss the following two drafts in order to create a WG
solution: 

 

.         draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect, and

.         draft-li-idr-flowspec-redirect-generalized-sid

 

Some of the Questions that will be discuss are included below.  Please
review the pre-recording presentations prior to the meeting.   The Chairs
encourage discussion of these questions on the list before, during, and
after the meeting. 

 

Sue and John 

 

========================

 

Agenda for IDR Virtual Interim Meeting 

 

May 16, 2016

22:00 - 23:00 EDT

 

WebEx:
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m9be481d19988dd1b545be6759aee267b

Meeting number:            649 235 411

Meeting password:         Jg66d2pm

Join by phone

1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)

1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)

Access code: 649 235 411

 

Questions for meeting: 

 

Submitted by (Eric Wu)

1. Redirect-to-Specific-Tunnel with BGP Path Attribute [TUNNELENCAPS][MPP]
and 

  Redirect-to-IID/GSID, Required by different use cases, can we have two
docs in IDR In parallel? 

  [Comparison to Redirect-to-IID/GSID , draft-hao will have more little
modification 

  to existing mechanisms, No need to do Mapping /Recursive Lookup.]

 

2.  For IID/GSID, one mapping table for 

  all kinds of segments/forwarding-entities vs. one mapping table 

  per segments/forwarding-entities type, should we support both?

 

Chair Questions: 

 

1) Does the WG feel we need the following for RFC5575bis (DDoS)

  a) Redirection to VRF, 

  b) Redirection to Indirection to IP, and  

  c) Redirection to Service (new)? 

  

2) If the WG desires redirection to Service routing, does the WG desire

a) Next-Hop tunnel support? -

b) Next-Hop TE Tunnel support? 

 c) Nested Tunnel support? 

 d) Next-Next Hop Tunnel Support? 

 e) Router localized Tunnel recursion? 

 f) Tunnel Encap Recursion: 

 

3) What pieces of the proposed solutions have been implemented

   and/or deployed?   

 

 

Presentations (prerecorded, please review prior to meeting):

- draft-vandevelde-idr-flowspec-path-redirect

  Gunter Van De Velde

  21 minutes

  https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=e01d62661085f660f470feddd9bf266f

 

presentation at: 

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/05/16/idr/slides/slides-interi
m-2016-idr-5-0.pdf

 

 

draft-li-idr-flowspec-redirect-generalized-sid

Eric Wu 

20 minutes 

 

Streaming recording link:

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=c8615aa845801a1e4b79cb1708a04484

Download recording link:

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/lsr.php?RCID=4bd504329727d2a811c9cb0c9bc713d8

 

presentation at: 

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/05/16/idr/slides/slides-interi
m-2016-idr-5-1.pdf