IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes
Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Mon, 08 August 2005 15:21 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E29RU-0003FF-Oj; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:21:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E29RS-0003FA-5i for l3vpn@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:21:31 -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 LAA27971 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ixe-nat1.juniper.net ([193.110.54.36] helo=up-smtp.jnpr.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E29zA-0002pa-VP for l3vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:56:21 -0400
Received: from emailemea1.jnpr.net ([172.26.192.140]) by up-smtp.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:21:13 +0100
Received: from pi-smtp.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.36]) by emailemea1.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:21:13 +0100
Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by pi-smtp.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:21:12 -0400
Received: from [172.25.42.155] ([172.25.42.155]) by proton.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:21:12 -0400
Message-ID: <42F77868.9060203@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:21:12 -0400
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2005 15:21:12.0212 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF67FD40:01C59C2C]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 96d3a783a4707f1ab458eb15058bb2d7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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
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