Minutes and action items from IETF 57
"Vach Kompella" <vach.kompella@alcatel.com> Fri, 01 August 2003 18:00 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02490 for <l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:00:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ieCD-0005Lf-A6 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:00:05 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h71I05WZ020553 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:00:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ieCD-0005LQ-3x for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:00:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02442 for <l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:59:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ieCA-0004oL-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:00:02 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ieCA-0004oH-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:00:02 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ieC9-0005JZ-MO; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:00:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ieBG-0005GB-GP for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:59:06 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02309 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ieBE-0004mM-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:59:04 -0400
Received: from [64.47.48.7] (helo=exchange.timetra.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ieBC-0004mA-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:59:03 -0400
Received: from vkompella ([64.47.48.10] RDNS failed) by exchange.timetra.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:58:01 -0700
Reply-To: vach.kompella@alcatel.com
From: Vach Kompella <vach.kompella@alcatel.com>
To: L2vpn <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: Minutes and action items from IETF 57
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 10:59:56 -0700
Message-ID: <FNEFIPCNJKDDONJGBCNEMEAOEEAA.vach.kompella@alcatel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C3581C.0B117D50"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2003 17:58:01.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[72D92110:01C35856]
Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
I finally got the minutes merged. Thanks to Dinesh and Sunil for taking notes. Raw notes files attached. I'll send another email with the presentations. Action items (I will send out separate emails on each item as needed): - Discussion on mailing list on both WG VPLS solutions - issue 1: do we move forward with two solutions? - issue 2: do they solve different problems, and if so, need applicability stmt for each one - Discussion on mailing list - IPLS: draft-shah - pretty good response from the room - need to verify on mailing list - address issues (Cheng-Yin's) - note to iesg for interworking - what is in scope and what is out - comments from WG on draft-shah interworking - is draft-sajassi in scope? - draft-sodder - need to get better refs for mac-in-mac, along with some indication that IEEE is in support - draft-vpls-ldp - change of vc type + opt parameter for signaling split horizon - change of id from vcid to pwe3 generalized id with some modifications - draft-radoaca - need mailing list response if ready for WG - does it need more clarification or is it just broken? - requirements - 4 week last call issue - framework - thought it was ready for last call - recent comments on mailing list may require some changes - draft-rosen - need to move it along - CE-based VPLS - why is it in scope? Cheng-Yin to address ======================================================== L2VPN minutes from IETF57 Minute takers: Sunil Khandekar, Dinesh Mohan Agenda bashing: Russ is the technical advisor for security ppvpn is no longer existent start using l2vpn mailing list common stuff on l3vpn web page with the charter already up tried as much as could from ppvpn that is relevant three types of vpns - vpws, vpls, and ipls ce-based solutions in the charter or not? one solution out there which is vpls from customer and vpws from provider Cheng Yee - it is not vpls since it is not full mesh Not in charter - inter-area l2vpn and multicast 4 working group documents - l2 framework -03, - vpls-bgp-00.txt new draft, discussion needed on mailing list - vpls-ldp-00.txt new draft, discussion needed on mailing list - l2vpn-requirements-00.txt this is up for last call after meeting Loa: Issue: IESG is interested in a single solution Bilel - how do you define single solution Yakov - do not understand why single solution Loa - as a operater, not as a chair, is interest in single solution for a single problem, no need to have two solutions for one problem, if two solutions, then must be two problems Alex - why are we here, work on a standard for each problem, therefore two solutions for the same problem is not useful Yakov - why this was not applicable to l3vpn yesterday, ietf should not be in business of deciding how many Alex - each one of us has personal opinion, why people are here in the room, lets not have this discussion here since not in agenda, but needs to be discussed since IESG needs Vach - can we hear other people what their opinion is, after we hear it on mike, lets take it to mailing list Bruce Davies - good to have one standard, but IETF has seen multiple standards in past, lets try to come something that wg can reach standards Hamid - way the solutions are decomposed is not correct, ldp/bgp since in ldp bgp may be used for auto-discovery - if functional decomposition done then we do not get into this discussion, e.g. l3 may want to use l3 as much as possible Kireeti - if we can do two Ross - working in standards for long time, never seen standards body being choosy between solutions Ali - show of hands Vach - before we do show of hands, how many have read each one show of hands to see one or multiple solutions - it is tie - we will go with multiple solutions for now - discussion on mailing list Loa - Candidate L2VPN drafts - shah-ipls - sodder-ppvpn-vhls-02 Vach - is this in scope? questionable - to be asked on the mailing list - verify with ADs - radoaca (GVPLS) - carugi-ppvpn-solution-doc-guidelines-01 Loa - we may want to keep this draft, do we need to make it rfc?] - lee-ppvpn-hybrid-vpls-01 - stokes-vkompella-ppvpn-hvpls-oam-02 - shah-ppvpn-arp-mediation - sajassi-interworking - lee-ce-based - any missing? Marco - targets of carugi-ppvpn-solution-doc-guidelines-01, to push solution proposals to document how they satisfy requirements, to begin applicability analysis and to promote convergence in the solution space. Vach - can ADs confirm whether the sodder-draft falls in the l2vpn charter? Loa - draft-shah-arp-mediation is out of scope draft-sajassi-l2vpn-interworking is out of scope draft-ce-based is out of scope, for now Ali - Disparate attachements ckts is a real problem so where will we address this. Vach - Per the charter this is out of scope. We have to decide whether members feel whether we need to address this here. Hamid - Commenting on charter; It says IP VPN and I read that as any particular attachment circuit and hence it should be in charter Alex - The inter-working part was part of the charter when it went to IESG. IESG was concerned that we might be stepping on other bodies toes and hence it was taken out. Lets gauge the consensus in the room and then take up with issue again with the IESG. Arvind - draft-sodder fits in this WG. Vach - Need normative ref for MAC-in-MAC encap Arvind - I will take up the encap We need a normative reference for the encap. Vach - AFAIK, None was given in the draft. If you can find a ref that is a standard or standards track Dinesh - Normative as something that is a std or a work-in-progress docs? Vach - Std is preferred or work-in-progress on its way to become a std is acceptable. Dinesh - Before the last call, I understand the requirement but initially it is ok to refer to some other work in progress. Tom Narten: This is a well known process you should give as much info as possible on reference to a work Loa - Missing components - applicablility statement per solution - security framework - to be worked with Luyuan Fang - mib modules - need volunteers starting to draft what mibs would look like Tom Nadeau - we have pwe3 mibs that kept services like this in mind Loa - would you volunteer to write a doc to describe scope Tom - yes Loa - Organizing ourselves - When you submit a draft to this WG the naming convention should be draft-name-l2vpn-xxx-yyy-00.txt - Once it become a WG doc the name changes to: draft-ietf-l2vpn-xxx-yyy-00.txt. - If you do presentations please follow the a format that has the page numbers on the slide, the issues ISOCORE - Interoperability test from March IETF - presented by Bill Jensen - does not support any particular company - no pictures of Loa this time! - scope of interworking - mpls rsvp-te/ldp signaling ldp over rsvp tumnels mpls based services p2p l2vpn - fr, ehternet/ethernet VLAN, VC tunnel scaling scenarios l3vpns multicast vpns - vpls specific issues - updates from march - clear definition of VPLS encapsulation actions - fixed - ambiguity in the lsr-id - ... - summary ISOCORE leveraged the N+I demo at Las Vegas .... - Upcoming MPLS/GMPLS testing - isocore code testing Aug 4th-Aug 14th .... Danny - Is the methodology and ... available Bill - Yes methodology is available, but some things are under non-disclosure Danny - can you elaborate multicast vpls? - (didn't catch answer) Hamid - p2p l2vpn - did you mean the work in pwe3? logically the only layer that belongs here is martini Bill - maybe should not try to speculate here Bijan - Isocore - the point was that we wanted to test compatibility between draft-martini and VPLS Himanshu Shah - Cienna IPLS draft-shah-ppvpn-IPLS-01.txt - predominantly the traffic is IP so IPLS is adequate, supports IP devices only, subset of VPLS service - adv: no MAC learning at the data plane, no aging, no BPDUs, GVRPs, easier to support PE routers etc.. - when is VPLS needed - when world needs Cheng yin - There are lot of issues that I have raised. Are you going to address this? Himanshu - Yes those will be addressed. Vach - you cannot do the comments here, lets get the comments in mailing list Ali - should address qiq interoperability, partial mesh failure - so having end-points as IP does not remove this problem Bruce Davis - Show of hands in support Vach - pretty good support Dinesh - ieee partial mesh issue is actually applicable to all VPLS solutions Arvind - should also ask support for WG Vach - Show of hands to make it WG 15-20, not to make it WG - 1 Vach - should be also asked on the mailing list if this is ready to become a WG document Vach Kompella draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-ldp-00.txt Vach - VC-type changed from 0xb to 0x5 - Handful of hands in favor of adding an optional parameter to indicate the VPLS type. - Have a VPN-id TLV that allows indicating the type of VPN-id that is being used. Ali - Hamid - Use the PW signaling. That signaling contains the generalized signaling field. Why not use that? Vach - I am just asking for the AGI field to be changed to TLV Hamid - There is already some discussion going on in PWE3 to change that. Vach - That is what I am proposing Hamid - OK Luca - why is 32 bits not enough? Vach - 32 bits is not enough for inter-galatic VPLS (really not sufficient for inter-region and inter-AS VPLS) Luca - lets do it in 1000 years then Vach - This takes care when the VPLS spans multiple area. Even though that is out of scope right now, when we do move there I don't want to restrict ourselves. Luca - just introduce a TLV and call it "name" Vach - that is what I am doing Luca - Please propose this on the PWE3 mailing list. Vach - will do. Hamid - It is just not a question of why 32 bits is not enough, it is because we need a way to identify a set of pseudo-wires. Hamid - 32 bit is not enough since it needs to be globally unique Kireeti - use route targets (48 bits) and then you will get discovery too. Vasile Radoaca draft-radoaca-ppvpn-gvpls-02.txt Peter - Lucent - If you look at the disctributed model, you have end to end LDP, do not understand incremental solutions Vasile - distrubution model is distribution of functional elements, in VPLS MAC learnning is impo functional model, therefore access technology is not made specific Peter: Why tie separate pseudo-wire together rather than treat it end to end Vasile: Model is to decompose the access and core and the access can be any type Ali: I think the question was about splicing and the reasons for that is to allow reduction in the number of LDP sessions. Ali: You are still using separate pseudo-wire for unicast and multicast. Is it still true? Vasile: Yes but this allows it to scale better. Ali: The BPDUs of the customer can take a different path from unicast pseudo wire and if there is an issue the end customers will not be able to detect this. This will be a problem. Loa: Please take this on the mailing list. Are you proposing to make WG doc? Vasile - yes, make it WG document Loa: How many would like this to be a WG doc and how many would not? More people were against the draft then for. Go back to mailing list for more feedback. Tom Narten - clearly no consensus here - so do we need to see what needs to change to get more support, or is it fundamentally a broken idea? Ali - we agree that there are merits and some issues in the draft. We need to ensure that we address the issues without wiping out the merits. Himanshu - ARP Mediation Vach - how many people have read, support Vach - is it in scope or out of scope Alex - this is out of scope - WG would like to proceed with this and ball is now in IESG court Loa - is WG requesting the IESG Andy - Inverse ARP is IETF RFC, Inverse ARP for ATM is IETF RFC, this is just trying to mediate between the two, what is the issue Alex - how is IS-IS supported in this case Himanshu - IS IS is not supported Ali - My draft supports IS-IS and I would like Alex to take my draft up with the IESG as well to make it in scope. Ali - bridge encap in is addressed in draft-sajassi interworking, Yetik - Requirements - some of the requirements may be out of scope because of charter change between L2VPN and PPVPN, should we keep them in requirements or take them out Hamid - which of these requirements would be out of scope Yetik - For e.g. inter-AS Loa - 4 weeks for the WG last call Final remarks Vach - Cheng Yin to bring the issues of CE-based on mailing list Ali - HVPLS OAM is on agenda? Vach - HVPLS OAM is not on the agenda Ali - the OAM mechanism that we come up should be transport agnostics. -Vach
- Minutes and action items from IETF 57 Vach Kompella
- Identifiers (was Re: Minutes and action items fro… Eric Rosen
- Re: Identifiers (was Re: Minutes and action items… Wei Luo
- RE: Minutes and action items from IETF 57 Hamid Ould-Brahim