Re: [multrans] Multrans Miniutes
Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Wed, 23 November 2011 00:42 UTC
Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: multrans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multrans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD8811E8098 for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:42:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.883, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r7LXrNUVEdUT for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:41:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B1111E8089 for <multrans@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bkbzv15 with SMTP id zv15so545666bkb.31 for <multrans@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:41:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WFxrxI3RnUWi1eBsehmHEpOsAKdzPbAXklkK75vOpIY=; b=xP3smKk5CtvsBUS3XvgaiG5EAv0pDVHdP0RaCK2VdDTvSv7U7ggokX3uGhqYTNF/pJ NLQyQaq/soIh1cx0PdcNg1fVTCsk66E7c1taGzM0gD1/6zcf070+Ix3FZHvK1KcWA5+t Hj3ju3jbMk4J5zNjbE7ooO/CbN95pvU9LTBtA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.132.78 with SMTP id a14mr18371003bkt.15.1322008916349; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:41:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.79.5 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:41:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1F7B63@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAJNg7VKVtQ=i6GV-ZmhwgDifFD_yqTUGsX0Q-G1UiSUbZYVYsQ@mail.gmail.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1F4471@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com> <20111121200358.GP19998@cisco.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1F7B63@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:41:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CABFReBpH1uvboRw3B6BO7vtgS9LNP4VSZLhNFHGf8S0jGJkBiA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
To: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>, multrans@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "eckert@cisco.com" <eckert@cisco.com>, Susan Hares <skh@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [multrans] Multrans Miniutes
X-BeenThere: multrans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
List-Id: "Discuss the work of IPv4-IPv6 multicast." <multrans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multrans>, <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multrans>
List-Post: <mailto:multrans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans>, <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:42:00 -0000
Please keep the multrans mail list on the distribution of all things related to multrans. Thanks, Greg On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> wrote: > Toerless, Marshall, > Some supplements from my memory and Tom's audio record: > 1. The part of "Spencer Dawkin: ..." is something like this if I remember corectly: > "Twenty people want to do SOMETHING, and maybe three people don't think we should, so we should do SOMETHING". > > 2. Dave Thaler said > "how multicast addresses are discovered on each side of the address family boundary." > > 3. There are 10 in the room + 1 in the jabber said "working group, then interim meeting", not 9+1. > When Greg counted 10 in the room, then I said from the my seat "Tom said 'I will break the tie' in the jabber", Greg said "I don't understand what u said", sorry about my Chinese accent. > > Tina > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tina TSOU > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 4:55 PM > To: 'eckert@cisco.com' > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; Greg Shepherd; Ron Bonica; Susan Hares > Subject: RE: Multrans Miniutes > > Thank you, Toerless. > > " Tina: work coming from group of people taking multicast work identified > out of behave, then derived the use cases etc. and figured that it > touches multiple areas and that's why they feel this justifies a WG." > > Can you rephrase what I said in the meeting as following which I remembered, > " Tina: work coming from group of people taking multicast work identified > out of behave, then derived the problem and use cases, priority of issues etc. > it was everything in Prague, then strip encapsulation in Quebec, and now its translation + ops, > figured that it touches BEHAVE, MBONED, V6OPS and PIM and that's why they feel this justifies a WG." > > > > Best Regards, > Tina TSOU > http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html > > > -----Original Message----- > From: eckert@cisco.com [mailto:eckert@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:04 PM > To: Tina TSOU > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; Greg Shepherd; Ron Bonica; Susan Hares > Subject: Re: Multrans Miniutes > > I had sent my minutes after the meeting directly to greg. Sorry, > couldn't remember marshalls mail. > > Appended. > > Cheers > Toerless > > > Agenda: > > Drafts: > > Problem statement draft > > Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Multicast Translation > > Multicast Proxy in IPv4/IPv6 Transition > > Agenda > > Welcome/Agenda bash/Minutes > > Stig: Item missing. > > Marshall: This is multicast IPv4 to IPv4 transition BOF, NOT TRANSLATION. > > Greg: less people here in BOF than last time. > > Alain Durand: lot of this work has been done in Softwire > Greg: but this is transition, not translation. > > Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Multicast Translation : Stig Venaas > draft-venaas-behave-v4v6mc-framework-03.txt > > Slide 2: Overview: > - behave did a unicast translation framework, RFC6144 > - this draft started as a multicast version of that > - ... > > Slide 3: Scenarios > - IPv4/IPv6 network/sender/receiver <-> > > Slide 4: Multicast and translation > > Slide 5: IPv6 nework receiving multicast from IPv4 Internet > > Slide 6: IPv6 network receiving multicast from IPv4 Internet > > Slide 7: Well-known multicsat prefix(es)? > > Slide 8: IPv4 network receiving multicast from IPv6 Internet > > Slide 9: New signaling mechanisms > > Greg: TOS translation ? > Stig: Should probably match the unicast translation itis using. > > DaveT(haler): Want mapping to be the same as unicast mapping if > unicast packets are sent to the source. Problem is slightly harder > than the simplre unicast case. Unicast: How do you get the address. > Unicast addresses can be learned via DNS. In multicast you are usually > joined with literal addresses. > > Greg: This is an SSM question. > Greg: It is less a translation than a location. > Dave: Right, eg: follow the default-route. > > Stig: Document has case where unicast translation is different from > multicast translation for example when paths are different. > Dave: Have an idea here, but depends on what is needed by use cases. > > Ron Bonica: You said stateful is almost impossible. This needs some > qualification. Eg: limiting the groupa address space makes this > fairly simple. Even the IPv4 address space is much larger than what's > needed, so only a small address range may need to be mapped. > > Stig: Agreed if you can limit yourself to known prefixes. For example > as a content provider. > > Ron: Given how new IPv6 multicast is, we should hopefully be able to enforce > this addressing limitation. > > Sue Hares: Did i understand correctly that only small set of addresses > are mapped ? This is the address translation function only ? > > Dave: Summary unicast of BEHAVE: Statefull and stateless. A small > range of v6 can be mapped to v4 stateless, otherwise statefull is needed. > > Ron: Translator can work in two ways: Statically join to everything > or only join dynamically. > > Stig: For dynamic mode you first need the joins to reach you, so you may > need to be an RP if ASM is used. > > Ron: DM do not need to talk about, but SM is interesting. > > Chairs: Primary use case is SSM. > > Unintelligble discussion about how sources vs. groups are discovered > (both in SDP). > > Hitoshi: Question: SDP related. Thinks it is not really a good idea > to change SDP. Should not change data in it. > > Second question: is there for translation negotiation ? > Stig: difficult. > > Toerless: SDP is translated also in unicast solutions. > > Use Cases : China Telecom : Oian Wang : 15 minutes > > Slide 1: 6-6-4 Case > Slide 2: 6-4-6-4 Case > > Marc Blanchet: for 6-4-6-4 was there an IPv4 network that was replaced by an > IPv6 network. > Presenter: Actually dual-core network. > Marc Blanchet: Why then use IPv6 transport instead of native IPv4 > Presenter: ... > > Tina: This is the IPTV network, IPv6 only. > > Dave: blue on the let and right connected by non IPv4 mcast should > mean 6 over 4 across the non mcast capable ipv4 network. > > Ron: Special case of first case. > > Tina: explains old equipment causing secon > > Toerless: On first slide, what additional signaling/data goes between > v4 source and v6 network ? RTCP, SDP, RTSP, EPG, anything else. > > Presenter: Need to get back to you. > > Dave: was this all the use cases ? > > Tina: Just the use-cases from china telecom. SOmewhat more generalized > from actual customer case. > > Use Cases : France Telecom : Christian Jacquenet > > Slide 1: Context > - Choose to deploy DSliste for new STB that can't get a unique IPv4 > address anymore. > Slide 2: 4-6-4 > > Toerless: SSM ? - Yes > > Stig: WIll there also be IPv6 receivers ? - Yes > Stig: So tunneling is not a good option. > > Ron: DSlite means tunneling through the v6 network ??? - No! > Christian: No tunneling anywhere > > specific use case detail: DSlite required. > otherwise same use case as china telekom ? > > Toerless: USe case definition should more explicitly include > descriptoin also of native receivers to make sure it is taken into > account (not only the receivers requring translation/transition). > > Marshall: Asking whether static translation is done. > Christian: This is just use case, not solution, but that exactly > is discussed as addition for multicast to DSlite. > > Marshall: How about additional IPv6 sources intot he IPv6 cloud, > this would complicate the problem. > > Christian: Yes, when there are IPv6 sources, there should not be any > more DSlite then anymore, but only native IPv6 service. > Only want to address very short term constraints. Just because of > insufficicent short term roadmaps of STB vendors. > > Marshall: I can also see solutions if there are IPv6 sources in the > network. > > Christian: But we want to avoid that context. > > Marc: Very similar to cases in before. > > Stig: possible solution: Lets make all IPv6 sources send to well > defined IPv4 prefixes that map to IPv4. > > Christian: There is a demo of this in the terminal room. > > Dave Thaler: Is there a requirement that the addressing after two > times translation is again the same as the original ? > > Marshall: there is a difference between requirement and having this > be done as an option. > > Dave: Has to do a lot with how the receiver learns about the source/group. > Would constrain set of options if it was a requirement for addresses to > be the same. > > Spencer Dawkin: ... > > Multrans Issues : Eubanks : 20 minutes > > Network example 1: IPvX-IPvY-IPvY > > Toerless: do we really need this, this is transition, so the > evolution of the network is v4 to v6. > > Marshall: There can be a lot of combination of v4 to v6 or vice versa > along the path. > > Ron: Find it easy to believe to add v6 receivers. Find it easy to > believe v6 network to v4 receivers. Have hard time to consider adding > v4 receivers to v6 sources/v6 network. > > Marshall: Want to flesh this out. Have representation of two operators. > Christian: agree with ROns comments. Can constrain the set of options. > > Stig: Y=4 is most useful for now. Also important to have support for > mix of receivers. > > Alain Durand: Reality is that there is a very popular vendor of > sources with no plan to go to IPv6. Receiver today are now IPv4. > There may be v6 receivers in the future > > Marc: Have taled about this for days and days and days. I am a firm > believe that we continue to talk about this. Need much more time > to agree on scenario. Just consider it may take a long time. > > Dan Wing: It took BEHAVE 5 hours to just conclude on the set of > cases and then prioritize. > > Content walk thhrough > > DaveT: Setp 0 is missing. How do you figure out the channel that > had to be put into step 1. > > Content Distribution walk thhrough > > Slide 6: Issues (1) > > Stig: Key thing is that it should be a standard mapping. > > Ron: Given how all sources start as v4, we should use stateless model. > > Slide 7: Issues (2) > > Stig: Should not assume the translation is an ALG. > > Discussion about AF and ALG terminology. > > Dave: AF and ALG boxes may not need to be the same box. Is that what > was meant by Stig in before ? > > Dan Wing: ALG - Application Layer Gateway: Examining and Modifying > application layer payload in signaling. The more complex it is the > harder the ALG job becomes. > > Marshal: Is multicast immune to this problem ? Classical signaling ? > > Dan: How classical do we become here ? SAP ? HTTP, HTTPs ? > > Ron: We probably don't tal about an ALG here. Just relays data-plane > between v4/v6. > > Stig: DOn't want to argue too much but keep it open what the AF > function is doing. > > Spencer: ... ? > > Hitoshi: ... > > Toerless: Difficult part is when addresses in EPG need to be changed > or otherwise application backends need to be aware of mapping of > v4/v6 addresses. > > Dave: The primary issue you haven't gotten to is how to learn > T(S) and T(G). Possible answers: a) proprietary -> non IETF. > b) assume signle discovery protocol, eg: DNS in Unicast. And then > do ALG for that protocol. c) most likely: STB also have no plans > to move to IPv6. Information receiver gets is exactly what the source > thinks. Even if it is in a different address family than the source, > and make that work. > > Marshal: back up. v4 source, v6 receiver. Application gets v4 address > information. Receiver then needs to apply magic. > > Dave: In category 3 either the application needs to do this magic > or the OS/stack. > > Marshal: yes. > > Dave: > > Toerless: category 4 ? Eg: can't change the app on the client, can't > change the stack, so mayube instead of then actually having an > IPv6 only receiver, we make it a dual stack client behind eg: DSlite, > and IPv4 is only used to receive multicast. > > Discussion Marshal/Dave. Not clear what is fully in scope. > Marshall: DOn't want to discuss web design. > Dave: This excludes case a) > > Marshal: What makes it proprietaary to use a web-page ? > Dave: Because of the required ALG. > > Marc: May actually want to device SDP ALG. > > Dave: SDP my itself is not a protocol, it's just a data-model that > needs to be carried in a transport. And then yes, this could be > category a) or b). > > Marshal: not supposed to solve this. > > Network Example 2: IPvX-IPvY-IPvX > > Marshal: Should this not done via a mechanism like softwires ? > > Toerless/Dave: Discuss unicast only use case of china telecom, > agree AMT would be appropriate, but this may not even need to > be in scope for this BOF/WG ? > > Marc: Are we ever getting to discuss whether to make a owrking group ? > > Room discussion : Proposed Multrans Charter and nex steps : Remaining time > > Marshal: There seems to be energy to work on this. Raise hand if > you are willing to work on this. > 18 in room +1 on jabber raise hand. > > Alain: There is already work chartered in another working group > softwires. > > Dave: This BOF is a spinoff of the BEHAVE working group. Needs NAT > and multicast experts together. This work would not overlap with BEHAVE. > > Alain is chair of softwires. > > Marshal: Is this overlapping with softwires. > > Alain: Very large overlap. > > Stig: Softwires is limited to only encapsulation. > > Greg: There is also the mesh draft which is not encapsulation. > > Greg: We need to collect what's missing from the work of other WGs. > > Marshal: Do we feel there is sufficient difference between softwires > and what could be worked on in a to be formed WG ? > > Dave: Suggest different question: Do people have enough information > if this a tractable problem. Primarily discovery is the biggest problem. > Fairly good confidence that data translation solution can be worked out. > > Greg: DSlite, softwires, right. Data is not the issue. > > Marc: Focussing on which use case to work on requires dedicated time. > after that is done, we will have a good idea whether we need a WG. > > Stig: This work could be first done in MBONED WG. > > Alain: One bit in softwires that is not fully fleshed is the translation > piece. What was not discussed/figured out is discovery. > > Toerless: Start discussing use-cases in mboned, review, recommend > solution elements for them. Take existing work in other WGs into account > (softwires). Figure out missing pieces. SImple pieces like translation > could even be done in MBONED. > > Greg: Alain suggesting interim meeting of dedicated group of people > doen by chair of group hosting work (eg: Alain -> softwires). > Identify piece missing, then forward those to MBONED. > > Greg: Interim meeting did not do multicast work. Suggest to do a > multicast-only interim softwires WG. > > Alain: Yes. > > Ron: Suggests joint interim softwires/mboned meting, parse out which > parts are to be resolved where. > > Tina: Work here is related to many WGs.a Better to have a single dedicated > working group. > > Stig: Work wostly limited to mboned. > > Ron: WOuld likely need STB people involved. > > Greg: Will not have all technical people if it's only done in mboned. > > Stig: Issue is how to get right people together. Need people who are > not in mboned involved. Need to get enough time for this, can't not be > pushed off. > > Greg: Interim meeting to come up with conclusion. > > Tina: can we go through four slides of proposed charter. > - walking through four proposed goals > - requirements > - alg > - translation > - configuration and management > > Alain: To early because we are not forming a WG. > > Dave: vote for webex, primarily mboned, also behave, see little > overlap with softwires. encap is softwires expertise. > > Alain: Expertise of softwires is use cases described by Christian. > > Dave: would like to see at least to se one internet draft on how > the discovery is done before forming a working group. Even if it's > not the best idea, but proof of exstance of a possible solution to the > discovery would be needed first. > > Tina: work coming from group of people taking multicast work identified > out of behave, then derived the use cases etc. and figured that it > touches multiple areas and that's why they feel this justifies a WG. > > Marc: proposes the interim. ALso a believer that after the focus > session not everything will be done. Also fear that it will spread > all over the place. A dedicated working group could help to keep > the architecture in one place. Otherwise we will get a puzzle solution. > > Christian: Second comment. interim with softwires. mboned and softwires > are natural placeholders and need to be involved in interim. > > > Ron: One draft about address mapping could be taken through AD sponsor. > > Ron: There is no requirement that there is a BOF before a WG. There > is the requirement it is a tractable problem and that there is > energy and maybe some commercial demand and that it fits in the area. > If we had an interim meeting hosted by other WGs and we find it is > a tractable problem, and we feel we do not have a good enough umbrella > in other WGs then we can spin off a WG. > > Tina: If we think about interrim before Paris - little time > Dave: Webex. > > Alain: Not interrested in repeat of this BOF. Instead figure out the > gaps, what's missing. Having a discussing at end of interim about > charter would be recipe for desaster. > > Opinion poll: > a) Form a working group according to proposed charter > 9 (room) + 1 jabber. > b) interim webex, mboned + softwires (+ behave) > maybe february time frame. > 10 > c) go home, do nothing > 0 > > Who is opposed to interrim: 0 > Who would participate in interrim: 15 > Opposed to WG now: 10 > > Ron: IETF is consenus based organization. Consensus in the room is fine, > With the current status in the room where 50% think we need an > interrim to see whether the work is tractable would be counted as > non sufficient consensus. > > Greg: Let's have the interrim. > > >
- Re: [multrans] Multrans Miniutes Greg Shepherd
- Re: [multrans] Multrans Miniutes Tina TSOU
- Re: [multrans] Multrans Miniutes Tina TSOU
- Re: [multrans] Multrans Miniutes Spencer Dawkins