[mpls] Draft MPLS Minutes: please comment
George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Fri, 18 March 2005 17:42 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02737; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:42:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DCLYx-0007Py-Tw; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:47:08 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DCLRf-0001Yl-RR; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:39:35 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DCLRe-0001Yg-97 for mpls@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:39:34 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02474 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:39:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DCLW7-0007Fv-W1 for mpls@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:44:12 -0500
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2005 09:40:40 -0800
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j2IHdMgS029314 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from swallow-mac.cisco.com (che-vpn-cluster-1-10.cisco.com [10.86.240.10]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id APX89465; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:39:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: by swallow-mac.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id BB04E25739F; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:40:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by swallow-mac.cisco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABD1257396 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:40:34 -0500 (EST)
To: mpls@ietf.org
From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.3; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 21.2.1
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:40:33 -0500
Message-Id: <20050318174034.BB04E25739F@swallow-mac.cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ff0adf256e4dd459cc25215cfa732ac1
Subject: [mpls] Draft MPLS Minutes: please comment
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e367d58950869b6582535ddf5a673488
IETF 62 MPLS WG Meeting March 9, 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chairs: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Scribes: M.Morrow, M. Eubanks Agenda Bash I. WG Status New RFCs: RFC 3988 MTU Extensions for LDP RFC 4023 Encaps MPLS in IP or GRE In IESG Review: ietf-mpls-bundle ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes ietf-mpls-nodeod-subobject-05 ietf-mpls-bgp-mpls-restart ietf-mpls-explicit-null (approved) Comments: A. Farrel - Fast track for RFC process would be welcomed for the Bundle draft Working Group Drafts soft pre-emption (ver -04 in pipe) Comment: J-P Vasseur - Should publish -04 next week for pre-emption mpls over l2tpv3 (new) LSP-Ping - Last Call after this meeting LSR-Self-Test - Last Call after LSP Ping II. Incoming liaisons: G.motnni from ITU-T SG 15 (Steve Trowbridge) Loa: Apologized for chairs dropping the liaison by accident (thus no response) Steve: Genoa meeting, editor MPLS Transport - too much included; transport NNI aspects of MPLS itself as transport technology - was not purpose of the document - should be shorter document and narrower in scope Next meeting is in May (ITU-T) Monique: Cisco pointed out problems with draft and liaison needed to be done MFA: Liaison Relationship with IETF Loa: The IETF already has a liaison relationship with the ATM Forum. The IAB wants to await outcome of proposed merger of ATM Forum and MFA before responding. A. Malis: Merger has to be approved by written vote by both existing orgs and still in progress (end of Mar termination of voting period); III. LDP to Draft Standard (Ina Minei) New rev since last IETF draft-3036-bis-01 Removal of host address FEC proved to be a significant change - Thanks E.Rosen and A.Malis for resolution of issue There were a lot of responses from the operational survey. Thanks to the participants, and to Scott Bradener for being the anonymizer. A new draft based on the survey results is available: Draft-minei-ldp-opertal-exper-00.txt A new version of 3036 bis will be posted soon, and this should be ready for last call. There also needs to be an implementation survey, and we will be working on that. IV. Pt-to-MP Signalling Req Draft (S.Yakusawa), pt2mp-sig requirement Rev -04 Removed application scenarios Remove (and apologized for) offensive remarks about PIM Made the choice of signaling protocols less constrained Renamed draft "signalling" Resolved 3 of the 5 outstanding issues 1) Variation of LSP parameters is not allowed 2) transit LSR's can re-optimize a sub tree 3) clarified case of tree re-merger to prevent egress data duplication Two remaining questions and issues: 1) Can short-term data duplication be tolerated 2) Absolute limits and design targets number of recipients number of branch points rate of Join / prune rate of change of tree topology Seisho proposed that the remaining questions be resolved through discussion on the list. Draft to be complete for last call in May or June. Loa: Preferable to have ready in May so that a last call can be completed before Paris. V. Extensions to G/RSVP-TE for P2MP TE LSP's (D. Papadimitriou) draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-re-p2mp-01 Terminology adapted to requirements doc; Document structure has been reorganized. Open Issues: 1) Style usage (SE vs FF style) 2) P2MP SENDER_TEMPLATE object and FILTER_SPEC 3) Review text for re-merge/cross-over conds 4) Re-optimization (requires consensus whether re-opt may be done on a P2P sub-LSP and / or sub-tree basis) 5) Pruning (deletion) and sub-ERO compression reorg 6) Stitching mechanism Discussion: George: Right now there are 3 different methods for tearing down an LSP. This seems unnecessarily complicated. Rahul: Point well taken. As you know, we had a huge number of authors. It needs to be pruned down on the mailing list. VI. Detecting P2MP Data Plane Failures (A.Farrell) yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping Need simple and efficient mechanisms to detect data plane failures in P2MP MPLS LSPs Reqs: Verification of reception at recipients Discovering p2mp topology Objective is to build on top of LSP Ping need to introduce RSVP P2MP session sub-TLV Revision 01 has not changed very much. The biggest was that we limited the choice of traceroute destinations to all, or one. Request for WG Rahul: The draft tries to limit the ping to a subset of the recipients? Adrian: Sub-set permitted in sub-set 1 or all (target individual recipient or whole tree) Rahul: If I have a tree with a thousand egresses then I am not sure that that solves my problem. Adrian: Issue is with problem statement - may be need to be a separate draft George: Leave it together for now - if it gets too big then separate VII. Component Link Recording and Resource Control for GMPLS Link Bundles (Zafar Ali) explicit-resource-control-bundle-04 This started in CCAMP at IETF 57. People found issues with link bundling. These were discussed and it was decided that this should be pursued by the MPLS WG. Motivation : TE Link Bundle resources are identified by TE Link ID, Component interface ID and Label value. RFC3209 allows for label recording, component recording would also be useful. RFC3473 allows for label selection; explicit component selection would be useful for applications like LSP splicing and SRLG diversity. Therefore the RRO and ERO should carry component IDs. We think that there is general agreement on the requirement and the solution, and would like to have it adopted as a WG doc. Loa: (after show of hands who read; who believe should be a WG doc) That's pretty good support, so we will take this to the list. Loa: Meeting adjourned - see you in Paris ======================================================================== George Swallow Cisco Systems (978) 936-1398 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] Draft MPLS Minutes: please comment George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] Draft MPLS Minutes: please comment Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: [mpls] Draft MPLS Minutes: please comment Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [mpls] Draft MPLS Minutes: please comment Kireeti Kompella