Re: IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes
Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Tue, 09 August 2005 21:36 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E2blS-0007cd-GY; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:36:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E2blQ-0007Yy-C6 for l3vpn@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:36:00 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16204 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:35:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E2cJO-00088X-TW for l3vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:11:07 -0400
Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E2blO-000Jse-DF; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:35:58 +0000
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:35:45 -0700
From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <1292446966.20050809143545@psg.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <42F77868.9060203@juniper.net>
References: <42F77868.9060203@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f402fbded34a6df606921f56b8bdd8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
List-Id: l3vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Ron, In many places below "Cisco" or "Alcatel" have been used instead of names. Can we please fix this? -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Monday, August 8, 2005, 8:21:12 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: > Folks, > Thanks to Hamid, Spencer and Scott for taking minutes. If I hear no > objections by Friday, I will post these minutes plus all slides that > were presented. > Ron > =================================================================== > Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (Internet Area) > Monday, August 1 at 16:30-18:00 > ============================== > Chairs: > Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> > Rick Wilder <rick@rhwilder.net> > Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> > Agenda: > 16:30-16:40 Document Status Review - Ross Callon > Ross presented the status review. > - Made good progress. Ross mentioned the new RFCs > published. > - bgp/mpls vpn specification initially waiting for addressing > the BGP extended communities within the idr wg. Recently it > was approved to progress and bgp/mpls vpn can progress now. > - iesg evaluation for pe-pe gre or ip in bgp/mpls, revised text > in wg last call. > - ospf for PE-CE protocol (revised in may) waiting for iesg. > - bgp auto-discovery revised given the feedback received, back > to AD. > - Waiting for write-up: > - Constrained VPN route distrib updated, waiting on chairs > - BGP-MPLS IP VPN for IPv6 updated, recently provided to IESG. > - Revised id needed: > Virtual Router Architecture and its associated applicability > statement. Comments sent to authors. > - Under AD evaluation: > An architecture for PP CE-based VPNs using IPsec and associated > AS needs review and update. > - Architecture for PE-PE IPSec tunnel for bgp/mpls ip vpns > recently updated based on last call comments > - Current work: > o Requirement for multicast > o Multicast solution in bgp ip vpn > o CE-CE member verification > o l3vpn import export verification (no activity on the above 2 docs). > o appl stat, framework > o definition textual convention mib for bgp/mpls ip vpn. > Multicast VPN Requirements - Thomas Morin > draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-01 > ========================================= > Thomas Morin presented the draft-id. > - A new update posted 2 weeks ago. > - in this presentation will go through the changes, > the multicast vpn survey, and we talk about next work. > - On the changes 2 new sections in the draft have been added. > o Carrier's carrier requirements and > o New section on QoS (ability to offer different QoS level to > different customers. > - Updated sections: QoS (5.1.3) maintain join and leave delay > requirement > (refer to RFC2432)and minimum MTU. > - Tunneling technologies need to mention P2MP LSP as much possible. > - Compatibility and migration issues solution should state > a migration policy. > - Trouble shooting provide the operator with > means LSP ping > - inter-as section (should provide inter-as mechanism requiring > least.... > - Big changes on section 4 (Uses cases) illustrated deployment > requirements. > - describe use cases scenarios > - provide order of magnitude for scalability requirement, > - waiting for survey. > - finally some edits changes... > - For multicast vpn survey (proposed at last ietf) > - survey overview (to be answered mainly by ISPs) > - focus on future expected deployments. > - typical questions Quantitative and qualitative (type of multicast > deployed, etc). > - Survey launched last week posted on different WG lists > please answer it and send completed survey to Daniel King Dan > (dnni.com) > - answers expected by Sept 15 05. > Tom described the Next items for the draft such as: > o complete section 4 with the help of the survey and > o refine the requirements (PE-Ce protocols, inter-AS, > carrier's carrier, extranet tunneling protocols, etc) > o Address some open questions relevance of MTU-related sections. > - Conclusion: requirement is mostly mature except section 4. > Tom asked the audience to provide comments on the draft > on the mailing list and answer and disseminate the survey. > - Questions on the draft: no questions. > Multicast VPN Solution - Rahul Aggarwal > draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-00 > ======================================== > Rahul presented the draft: > This is an update on multicast draft, this is Wg document. > Rahul shows the co-authors/contributors, > fully committed to move this work forward, > This presentation for discussion open options. > Reduce options if possible, outline the issues and > specify required and optional procedures, > looking at MVPN routing information exchange > service provider technologies > - need to look at scalability of entire network. > consider rate of churn C-joins/Prunes > number of protocol sessions require frequent periodic > changes > - how does it fit with 2547 operational model unicast > Rahul shows a table for MVPN routing exchange > not exhaustive list. Periodic refresh, session per PE UI-PMSI,. etc. > for BGP, PIM UNicast, PIM multicast... > - Do we really need PIM-SM with GRE? Discovery can be done using > BGP, shared trees can be built with PIM-SSM. > Conclusion > Goal to address these issues and produce 01 version. > Ross: is you proposal is to propose this options to > the WG list. Make Wg aware of the options: > - Ross Callon: is your proposal to ask these questions on the WG > mailing list? > Rahul: Yes. Want to capture these questions in the > minutes. Send email on the list and initiate the > discussion. > -Question on BGP encoding to be published. They are already published > encodings for BGP to carry MVPN information > Rahul: Existing proposal may or may not be used. > - Question (person from Cisco): Wants backward compatibility with what > has been > deployed for years and the Rosen draft. > Rahul: Certain options have been deployed, some not. Point well taken. > Need WG input. > - Question: Deprecate PIM-SM? Some providers already use > it. > Rahul: Point taken. OK. > - Question: need periodic refreshment. There is are WG items that try > to reduce periodic refreshes. Need to consider these approaches other > that may reduce the overhead. > - Albert, Redback: PIM needs periodic refresh? There's some work in > PIM WG to reduce periodic refreshes. Need to consider these > approaches. > Rahul: Yes, need to look at pragmatic options, point taken. > - Question (from Cisco): What is a service? The only difference to the > MVPN service is whether using SSM or ASM. The protocol you use to > implement it should be a separate issue. > Rahul: draft should talk about applicability of protocols. > Draft has told about tunneling technologies > Yakov Rekhter: I disagree. Need to specify which protocol for > interoperability reasons. > Toerless: same with IS-IS and OSPF. > Yakov: yes. > Toerless: what does rfc2547 say about IS-IS? > Dan Alvarez: At least why do we think BGP is suitable. For > example there is no information on dynamic building of OSPF trees > etc. > Comment (Person): this is the wrong level of detail. Why this need to be > specified. > Yakov: I disagree because of interoperability reasons need to specify > which protocol > to use. > Question (Albert from Cisco): last comment: how well bgp is suitable for > multicast > bgp is not used for intra multicast operation, why BGP is suitable. > no information on dynamic multicast tree and how it related to > scalability. > why use BGP as replacement for all existing multicast protocols... > Rahul: Not talking of building trees with BGP, > just transporting with BGP. one item for consideration > Alcatel: The one thing for BGP helps is to provide a reliable transport. > Rahul: Note that BGP does have filtering mechanism...and is applicable > in this case. > Ross: some of discussion can go to the text... > Multicast VPN MIB - Tom Nadeau > draft-svaidya-mcast-vpn-mib-02 > ================================ > Tom presented the draft. > Propose this document to manage rosen-multicast doc. interacts > well with MPLS MIBS. > draft need to use the combined approach will be published soon > after meeting. > - Ross: Have you got input? > - Tom: Yes. Will be published soon. > - Tom: Can we publish it directly as Wg doc. > - Ross: The MIB managed the combined draft. When the MIB will be > updated to reflect combined drafts then we have two choices: > either submit as individual contribution and request WG to > ask for WGs, or just make it wg doc. > Ross: My personal option if the authors of both sides agree this is > the agreed way forward then I don't see objections to adopt it > as WG doc. > Ross: Does anybody has any objection to that? > No objection from audience... > Virtual Router Multicast Solution - Hong-Ke Zhang > draft-zhang-l3vpn-vr-mcast-01.txt. > ================================================= > Presenter: Spencer Dawkins. Spencer mentioned Zhang couldn't make the > meeting. > There were some scalability questions on the mailing list such > as the number of trees in SP core will not exceed the number of > VRs, and does all multicast traffic in a VR share the same tree, > answer yes. > Does this approach require PIM-DM mode > answer no, next version will say this more clearly. > Questions: > - Ross: whose read the draft: > - Ross: few hand for those who read the document. Obvious question > out of 10 would that be any objection for those become WGs. Not quite > enough need to take it to the WG list and ask the question. > - Ross: if anybody is interested in deploying multicast for > vr please bring those to the mailing list.
- IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes Ron Bonica
- Re: IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes Alex Zinin
- Re: IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes Ron Bonica