[PWE3] Philadelphia minutes
"BOCCI Matthew" <Matthew.Bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk> Mon, 17 March 2008 09:21 UTC
Return-Path: <pwe3-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82FE28C261; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.826
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.826 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.541, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IiA66QpkQ0kv; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9893A6CD3; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F01B3A6B46 for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tsU9Xa7e9ppT for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4633A6D09 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRVELSBHS07.ad2.ad.alcatel.com (frvelsbhs07.ad2.ad.alcatel.com [155.132.6.79]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id m2H921QR019749 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:02:01 +0100
Received: from FRVELSMBS11.ad2.ad.alcatel.com ([155.132.6.32]) by FRVELSBHS07.ad2.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:18:49 +0100
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:18:49 +0100
Message-ID: <0458D2EE0C36744BABB36BE37805C29A01A0416C@FRVELSMBS11.ad2.ad.alcatel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Philadelphia minutes
Thread-index: AciDhhVlnb53jxM0QZydvfOjCr4B9wCdNvBg
From: BOCCI Matthew <Matthew.Bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk>
To: pwe3@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2008 09:18:49.0752 (UTC) FILETIME=[E925E180:01C8880F]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 155.132.188.13
Subject: [PWE3] Philadelphia minutes
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2116518762=="
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Folks, Please find attached the draft minutes from Philadelphia. Please let me know if you have any comments. Best regards, Matthew > Monday, March 10th, 2008 - 15:20 - 17:20 > ---------------------------------------- > CHAIRS: Danny McPherson & Stewart Bryant > SCRIBE: Matthew Bocci > > ------------------------------ > WG Status and Update - Chairs > ------------------------------ > > Agenda agreed. > 20 RFCs to date > 3 held up > MIBs pushed through to IESG. > MS-PW requirements - many security requirements on this. Trying to > resolve these. There is a backlog behind these. > ATM MIB a little late - updated now > Work in progress - many held up due to MS-PW reqs. > Redundancy - now a WG item. No negatives on the list. A few comments > on list about couple mechanisms together. > Need some work on other MIBs. > New charter being worked on > OSPF routing draft - needs to coordinate with the OSPF. Chairs will > check with ADs that this is OK to take on. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > PW Redundancy Update - Praveen Muley > (Praveen.muley@alcatel-lucent.com) > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pwe3/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit/ > draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-00.txt (posted to list) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Gives an update on the drafts. Both adopted as WG docs. > Major addition is revertive behaviour. > Framework and Requirements: > - added new co-authors > - added new definitions and terminology > - aligned text to be more to FR like > - added generic PW requirements > > Shows new terminology. > Generic PW redundancy requirements - 1:1 is mandatory, N:1 optional > 1+1 is left for further study. > Non-revertive mandatory, revertive optional. > Added operational requirements. > > Preferential forwarding status bit draft: > - updated scope of protection capabilities achieved > - - revertive/non-revertive behaviour > - Added appendix > > > Next steps > - manual lockout case > - more feedback from WG requested > > Danny: has evolved and progressed and fine to go forward > ??: ITU-T have defined some linear protection. Better to align with > ITU-T. > Dave McDyson - I agree. Important clients are TDM etc that have their > own native protection schemes. Framework would be a good place to map > native service terminology and make appropriate references. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > MPLS & Ethernet OAM Interworking - Dinesh Mohan (mohand@nortel.com) > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-00.txt > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Presented by Nabil Bitar. > > Current PWE3 OAM message mapping does not address interworking with > Ethernet OAM. > Since then, good progress in Ethernet OAM space. > This draft tries to complement the mapping draft with interworking > with PWs. > Shows reference model. > Consistent fwd/reverse defects with message mapping draft > Explains PW and AC defect detection options, and the mapping of > reverse and forward defects between the Ethernet AC and the PW > > Next steps: > Could merge with oam-msg-map or pursue as a separate draft. > > Yaakov Stein - this is important work. Have you also looked into .3ah? > We need this covered too. > Nabil: I thought we did, because we cover link level defects. We need > to go back and make sure this is covered. > Ali Sajassi: This is a very good comment. Counts for ELMI too in MEF. > Luca Martini: I have asked for this years ago, and chairs did not want > to put into. I am in favour of putting this into message mapping. > Stewart - don't remember, but msg-map is quite mature > Luca Martini - this will generate more interest again and we can > progress this. > Stewart - Monique is the editor and she just refreshed it. It would be > good to review msg-map, and progress Ethernet separately as some more > material to add. > Yaakov Stein - agrees should be separate, and not hold up message map. > Danny: is there consistent terminology with OAM and redundancy drafts? > Nabil: The mapping draft is most advanced, and common authors with > redundancy, so hope they are consistent, but need to check. > > Stewart: if existing OAM message mapping draft is nearly done, then > keep separate so as not to hold up. > > Luca Martini: what will the IESG say without the lack of Ethernet? > Stewart: put in informative reference to Ethernet doc. Co-authers need > to add informative reference, and then we will last call it. > George Swallow: The way the industry is going, the Ethernet is the > most important part. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > LDP AII Reachability - Frederick Jounay > (frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com) > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-delord-jounay-pwe3-ldp-aii-reachability > -00.txt > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > > First version of the draft. > > Explains rationale. > Procedure to populate AII routing tables in first hop S-PE via LDP > Intended to complement IGP/BGP mechanisms > Problem statement: > Typical to access networks. No IGP or BGP - p2p physical connectivity > But run LDP for PW setup > IP and PW addressing separate > > Does NOT replace routing protocols > Advertise only locally attached AII > > Explains proposed mechanism > > Next steps: > - feedback from WG > - add some extra scenarios (dual homing) > - extend to AGI as well? > > > Luca Martini: What do you mean by extend to AII? > Fred: Just mean also use for VPN provisioning using LDP > Luca Martini: Just haven't found a good application for the AGI in > this context, but would like to know if you have one. > Fred: Network autodiscovery populates on S-PE/T-PE, but VPN > autodiscovery must only be at the end point > Hamid Ould-Brahim: on your 1st slide, what do you mean by interwork > with other auto-discovery mechanisms? > Fred: the S-PE can relay this info based on BGP or IGP > Luca Martini: confusing term is auto-discovery. It should be over > routing protocols. > > Stewart: Who is interested? Lots > Stewart: Who thinks this is a good starting point? Quite a few > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Conversation Hashing for Pseudowires - Vach Kompella > (vach.kompella@alcatel-lucent.com) > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-vkompella-pwe3-hash-label-00.txt > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Discussed a long time ago, but no demand at that time. Then Stewart > brought fat PW draft, so I wanted to add this to the pile. > > A PW can carry many flows, and do not want PW to follow one path if > the PW has many flows that can follow different path e.g if PSN has > ECMP or LAG etc > Explains PW hashing fields > Could use hack such as looking at 1stt nibble, but complex and only > works if it is a 4/6 for IP. > Can we do something intelligent with the label stack? > > Shows an example. > > Solution proposes that 2 ends of PW exchange a range of has labels > that can be used by ingress side to hash traffic and pick a next hop > for trhe PSN. > Packet: tunnel, hash, PW label, payload > > At LSR, LSP swaps on tunnel label. > > At egress, tunnel popped, hash is popped, and then you proceed based > on PW label. > > Benefits include the fact that ingress holds one set of labels per > peer. Egress distributes one set of labels. Extensible to PSNs and to > BGP VPNs. > Hasahable info is stable per flow, uses MPLS methods, requires no > changes to the CE, minimises the labels allocated and programmed per > node. > Acknowledges that some P routers don't hash this way (order of > labels), would like to understand if we should... > > Shows some considerations on extending to PSNs. > Ingress PSN- hash label at the top of the stack. > Questions - where should we put hash label? I think it should be > before the PW label to leave PW context processing to the end. > How does this work with existing implementations? > Is this a new FEC? Or just a capabilities exchange? > Diversity for BGP label exchanges. > Should this be done in MPLS WG? > Could this be used to explore PW paths like LSP-ping multi-path? > > Danny: please address these questions first, then we will go to > regular questions > > Yaakov Stein: yes, place to put it is between PW label and tunnel. How > does this work for LSPs. > Vach: For PW, 1stst guy gets a packet with n different hash labels, to > choose n different next hops. > Discussion taken off line > Rahul : not sure if this applies to IP VPNs because IP header > involved. PSNs could be an issue due to application level entropy... > Kireeti Kompella: good stuff here. There are a lot of things you have > not done quite perfectly yet. Happy to help. In picture, how do you > get a good hash if you have 20 bits of option and only using 3 bits? I > think you put labels in wring place - talk about off line - but do > agree we need to extend to IP VPNs and PSNs. > Stewart - include me in this. > Kireeti Kompella - I agree bottom is the right place. Would like to > take out of PWE3 for now, and talk among all the interested people. > Then we can figure out how to proceed. > Danny: agree > Don O'Connor: is this only for best effort? > Vach: this is not developed well enough for multiple levels of service > Don O'Connor: should this be in the charter? > Vach: Could use diffserv TE and use different hash label > Stewart: Not clear that you need to know this > Don O'Connor- if you want to groom traffic by traffic class in an S-PE > this should be allowed > Ali Sajassi: have you considered impact on native and PW OAM? > Vach: No, not yet > Ali Sajassi: It has impacts and needs to be considered. If you exclude > OAM for the time being, why not assign multiple PW labels? > Vach: Service Providers have large numbers of PWs. That would not > scale. Amount of churn on every failure would be too high. > Ali Sajassi: need to address OAM > George Swallow: only time I looked into what labels are hashed on, > everyone hashed on bottom label. Could do this survey again. If this a > general mechanism, should not be in MPLS. I would like to be on this > mailing list. > Stewart: issue that if we do this in MPLS, not clear that the > signalling for PS will work properly. > Kireeti Kompella: need to do something for underlying tunnels, and > make some generalisation about load balancing. We can then farm out > the signalling to individual groups. Framework in MPLS. > Stewart: Agrees to that. > Vach: requirements come from providers, and they have lots of > differences, but there is also differences on the implementation side > so would like to not just give to a set of providers. > Stewart: My draft was with DT because it is a real SP problem. > Mark Townsley: No problem in defining this in MPLS, but pressing > problem is here. Does not seem all that pressing for the IP case. > Dave Allan: Would echo Mark's comments - for something that can hash > IP now, too much complexity. Also need to ensure OAM flows fate share > with combination of PW and hash label. > Luca Martini: Comment on both drafts. Does not solve a generic > problem. Only works if you can identify a flow to has on the input. > What causes such a large flow? And IPSec flow from a bank? This only > works if you can identify the flows on ingress. > Shane Amante: agree this belongs in MPLS. Mark and Rahul had some > discussions about IPVPN. This is needed for that because customers USE > THESE FORLARGE FLOWS. > > Danny - Need framework and requirements and coordination with fat PW > stuff. > > --------------------------------------------------- > T-MPLS Update - Stewart bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) > --------------------------------------------------- > > Describes SG13 plenary in Seoul. T-MPLS protocol and requirements. > Q5/13 in Seoul. Meeting attended by 3 IETF Ads, plus 1 from IAB. Goal > to represent comments from IAB DT. > Considerable work on requirements - amended to become implementation > neutral requirements, which were published as an informational > supplement. Available through ITU-T web site. > Non-normative, but lots of useful info on improving OAM for MPLS and > PWE3. > > G.8114: no technical work. Question recommended that Recommendation > withdrawn from AAP and publication stopped. > > SG5 plenary: > Considerable work done before meeting on structure of JWT. This was > approved. Because of the pending decision on JWT, all related tech > work on T-MPLS halted until decision taken. > > JWT task to recommend option 1 or option 2 to ITU management. > Small team of experts picked. > Jointly chaired by David Ward and Malcolm Betts. > Based on technical studies of 2 large study groups - IETF interop > design team, and ITU-T ad0hoc group. > > IETF Interop design team will perform technical analysis to determine > what ITU or IETF docs/technology mods/extensions needed. Advise JWT on > the deliberations. > IETF MPLS interop DT chaired by Loa. Must report by April deadline. > Technical work is only to understand what needs to be done. Design > will be done in normal standards process. > > Shows work areas. > > ITU Ad Hoc group investigates technical info needed to decide between > option 1 and option 2 > > JWT will compile results of 2 support groups and make a decision. > > Regardless of option 1/2 decision, we have learned a lot about OAM > requirements. Will be a draft on this. > There is also mis-understanding about the use of the EXP bits. There > will be a draft to clarify this as well. > > Don O'Connor: what about protection, data plane, etc > Stewart: the only thing we can really do is reverse engineer the other > documents, as there are no requirements for these. > Don O'Connor: what is ITU design team going to be doing? > Malcolm Betts: we had a n=meeting in Geneva for 2 days. We developed > some requirements, and posted on ad-hoc teams FTP site. We should have > some improved clarification on requirements in the next few days. > Don O'Connor: so if option 1 is chosen, future methodology is 1 DT > with requirements? > Stewart: some things will be done here, but some things will happen > over in ITU e.g. G.805 modelling. But MPLS technology extensions have > to happen here. > Malcolm Betts: agrees. Note these design teams have no authority to > change IETF or ITU-T documents. These have to be done via regular > standards process in the appropriate bodies. We also need to improve > liaison process. > Stewart: There is a common agreement that we will work together > Danny: Appreciates the incredible amount of work done. Thanks to > everyone. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > PW Multiplexing - Yaakov Stein (yaakov_s@rad.com) > ------------------------------------------------- > No draft on this. > > Heard a bit about protection and load balancing today. These were held > over from last time. This is some architecture work. In PWE3 arch, we > have an element that can help us. This is a PW Mux which is based on > the forwarder in the arch draft. A forwarder gives you a many-many > connection. > Can be used for protection, AC protection, and PW load balancing and > inverse mux. > > Doesn't think label space exhaustion is a problem because 2^20 labels > Explains 1+1 protection. PW mux maps AC to appropriate PWs. > 1:1 can use PW redundancy signalling, but then PW mux makes the > decision on forwarding. > > 1+1 AC protection: AC mux, and associate multiple ACs with single PW > label > 1:1 AC protection : again map single PW label to multiple ACs. > Load balancing and inverse mux: use all PWs at same time, but not for > all the packets. > > Proposal is for pure architecture work. > Need a single method for PW protection, AC protection and load > balancing and PW mux. > Means a single label for associating PW labels to AC IDs. > Designating PW status > Signaling between forwarders > > Sasha V: agree with Yaakov, and 3985 says must be per-tunnel, but 4447 > says must be per-platform because of MPLS arch requirements. Can you > map CE dual homing to this? This is not covered. > Yaakov: why is this not 1+1 AC protection? > Sasha: Because not one PW > Yaakov: This is a very important use case. If it cannot be included, > we should see if we really want to proceed. > Andy Malis: on ACs, why not just use LAG or multi-link > Yaakov: could do, but this is a single AC from arch point of view. > Sure you could do that. But that is not using the function of the > forwarder. > Andy Malis: so why is this needed? > Yaakov: might not be Ethernet, might be ATM IMA etc. > Dave McDyson: why can't these just be native service protection? > Yaakov: If you have native service protection, go ahead and use it if > you want. > Dave McDyson: is this really a requirement then > Ali Sajassi: so you are proposing multiple PWs per AC for load > balancing? > Yaakov: yes > Ali Sajassi: we have an internal PW ID and a hash ID, whether you map > into a single or two labels, that is only an encoding issue. > Yaakov: might be computationally more expensive with two labels that > you have to pop. > Ali: 2 issues: number of labels and processing in the PE. Processing > in the PE is not an issue. > Stewart: putting an extra label in is not computationally complex. > > Danny: proposal is that you publish a draft on anything else you want > to discuss. > Yaakov: wanted to have presentation because wanted to gauge interest > Stewart: touches on a number of areas > Danny: could submit as a draft this is the appropriate way to convey > this. > > ------------------------ > Meeting Closes (early!). > > > > >
_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
- [PWE3] Philadelphia minutes BOCCI Matthew