Re: [mpls] draft mpls wg minutes

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

I support (but, I'm an author)
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Bill Fenner" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:10 PM
Subject: [mpls] draft mpls wg minutes


All,

this is a draft version of the mpls working group notes from the
Paris meeting. I would like to ask especially people that made
presentation to review the agenda items that relates to their
presentaions. Comments to me and/or the list before eob Tue Aug 23rd.

Also make sure I've all slides that were used. If you are
uncertain - please send!

/Loa

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---



Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG (mpls)

MONDAY, August 1 at 10:30 - 12:30
=================================

CHAIRS: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
         George Swallow <[e-mail]>

AGENDA:

1.  ICMP interactions with MPLS
===============================
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01aug/I-D/draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-02.txt>
Ron

Ron gave a short background; ICMP as specified in RFC792, does not have
a mechanism to report MPLS header information when a router fails to
deliver a packet. The MPLS WG processed a draft on MPLS extensions (an
object to report the MPLS header) for ICMP and requested that the draft
should be published as an RFC on the Standards track. The IESG decided
not to publish it because of "layer violation". However the draft has
been widely implemented and is an integrated part of most MPLS
implementations.
The draft has now been resurrected < draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-03>, and the
discussion is what work we need to undertake get it published.
It was pointed out that we can’t change anything in the technical
details. This needs to be coordinated with the Internet Area, and one
Suggestion is to move the parts that are not MPLS specific into a draft
that the Internet Area will progress, while the MPLS specific parts goes
through the MPLS working group.
Ron will discuss this in the Internet Area meeting and we will await the
outcome of this discussion.

2.  Agenda bashing
==================
Apart from moving the discussion on MPLS ICMP, to the top of the agenda
to make possible for Ron to present the same topic in the Internet Area
meeting (taking place at the same time), there were no other changes in
agenda.

3.  Working group status
========================
Working group chairs reported on the status of working group documents:

Parking Place
-------------
We have a new “parking place”, i.e. a web site that lists all documents
that IESG have approved to be published as RFCs. The parking place is
located at:

http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/parking

New RFCs from the MPLS working group since last meeting:
-------------------------------------------------------
RFC 4090 Fast Reroute Extensions for RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels

Working group documents in RFC-ed queue:
----------------------------------------
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt (2002-04-11!)
draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-06.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-telink-mib-07.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-02.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-mgmt-overview-09.txt

We have documents that have been stuck in the RFC-editors queue for some
time. Actually the oldest document in the queue comes from the MPLS
working group.

Working group documents in parking place:
-----------------------------------------
None

Working group documents in IESG review:
---------------------------------------
draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt (publication requested)
draft-ietf-mpls-lc-if-mib-06.txt (new ID needed)
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-09.txt (new ID needed)
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-05.txt (ietf last call)
draft-ietf-mpls-bgp-mpls-restart (IESG evaluation)
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes (IESG evaluation)

MPLS working group drafts:
--------------------------
draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-frmwk
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-06.txt (dated)
draft-ietf-mpls-over-l2tpv3
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-01.txt (dated)
draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption


4.  LDP to Draft Standards
==========================
<draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-01.txt>
<draft-minei-ldp-operational-experience-01.txt>
Ina

draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-01.txt has gone through minor editing and is
ready for WG last call.

draft-minei-ldp-operational-experience-01.txt has been refreshed, it is
a required informational reference for advancing the BIS draft. Please
provide this draft with in depth review.

One additional draft - protocol analysis - is also required (RFC 1264)
to take LDP to draft standard to receive in depth review.
The packages we need to prepare for taking LDP to Draft Standard also
include <draft-thomas-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt>.

Working group chairs will start the Working Last Call on the LDP
document and poll the list for making the implementation survey and the
operational experiences working group documents.

5.  MPLS OAM
============

LSR Self Test
-------------
<draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test>
George

This draft has been waiting for the LSP Ping to clear working last call.
This has now happened and after minor changes it is ready go to working
group last call.


P2MP LSP Ping
-------------
<draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-02.txt>
Adrian

Since the meeting in Minneapolis a new work from Bill Fenner (new
co-author) has been added and the objectives have been made more
precise. Currently it is possible to ping one specific leaf or the whole
tree.
There was a good support for making it a working group document. Working
group chairs will confirm this based on input on the working group
mailing list.

<draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-00.txt>
Tom

The draft addresses issues for using the base LSP Ping in Inter AS
contexts. Although there is a need to complete some sections of the
draft the authors ask for feedback. One problem with using base LSP Ping
is that the IP address found in the packet need not be routable if the
forwarding failure occurs in an AS to which the AS where the packet
originates does not announce the address that is found “under” the MPLS
label. The indicated solution is to record the ASBR that the LSP Ping
packet passes through, and if a failure occurs return the packet to the
ASBR.

P2MP OAM requirements
---------------------
draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-00.txt
Tom
The document addresses issues on how to detect and report data plane
failures. Tom thinks that the document is a little rough; it needs a
clarification and additional review. The P2MP OAM requirements should go
into a document of its own and needs to address both diagnostic and
periodic OAM. Input from Service Providers and careful review is
important.
Loa asked who has read and who supported this to become a working group
document. Among those who have read the document there is a good support
for making it a working group document. Needs to be confirmed on the list.

6.  MPLS Multicast and MPLS P2MP
================================
<draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-02.txt>
Rahul

Rahul said that version -02 was recently published, according the
authors it is not entirely ready for last called and a version -03 is
planned. The working group should take the opportunity to read and
comment.

<draft-rosen-mpls-multicast-encaps-00.txt>
<draft-raggarwa-mpls-upstream-label-00.txt>
<draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-ldp-upstream-00.txt>
Rahul

The background is that there is some inconsistency between what RFC3032
says about multicast and unicast, and the actual requirements. The three
drafts discuss separate aspects of this and propose mechanisms solutions
to some of the problems.
One of the mechanisms that are introduced is upstream label allocation
(UAL). The drafts also concluded that it is not necessary to have one
code point allocated for unicast and one for multicast, since this is
given by context in the NHLFE.
Conclusion is that there is some need to revisit how code points have
been assigned. Instead of assigning one code point for unicast (8847)
and one for multicast (8848), the draft suggests that the code points
are used for downstream allocated (8847) and upstream allocated (8848).
The concept of “Neighbor specific labels” is introduced since this is
required for support of upstream assigned labels. With UAL - the context
of a label is derived from the neighbor from whom the labeled packet was
sent.

The chairs asked how many had read the drafts and who thought they need
to become working group drafts. Neither the amount of people who have
read the drafts nor the support for making them working group drafts was
conclusive.

The working group chairs will take steps to initiate a discussion on the
mailing list. Adrian pointed out that the LDP and RSVP-TE aspects are
split out in separate drafts. The working group co-chairs strongly
supported this. Authors agreed to this.

MPLS Multicast
--------------
<draft-leroux-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-01.txt>
Jean-Louis
Jean-Louis discussed the multicast requirements that are emerging
in MPLS VPN applications. Extending LDP is a fairly low complexity route
to support P2MP LSP setup requirements.

The discussion brought up issues like why it is appropriate to have a
leaf-initiated protocol in the p2mp case when this was not the case in
the TE case. The benefits of shared trees vs. source based trees were
discussed.

George pointed out that some of the requirements are on the IGP routing
rather than MPLS or LDP.

Since this work is not captured in the working group milestones we need
to ask the ADs if we can update the working group charter. Only after
that we can accept this as a working group document.

George asked for a sense of how many people were interested
in doing this work in this WG. Many hands were raised. The working group
chairs will bring this to the ADs.

<draft-minei-mpls-ldp-p2mp-01.txt>
Ina
To extend LDP for p2mp is an attractive option since LDP is widely
deployed. In these networks there might be a need for p2mp LSPs, but
deploying RSVP-TE might be considered too much of a cost.

<draft-wijnands-mpls-ldp-mcast-ext-00.txt>
Ice
This draft also proposes extensions to LDP for multicast, there seems to
be enough overlap between two drafts to look into if there is a
possibility to merge them into one. The author agreed to this.

BGP Point to Multipoint LSP
---------------------------
<draft-satoru-mpls-bgp-multipoint-01.txt>
Satoru Matsushima

Due to lack of time it was not possible to make this presentation.

6.  Inter-AS LDP
================
<draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-00.txt>
Bruno
Due to lack of time it was not possible to make this presentation.

7.  End of meeting



-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  [phone]
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: [phone]
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [e-mail]
                                            [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls



_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls