[Teas] raw notes from this morning's session
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 04 April 2016 15:41 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE81D12D5A7 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 08:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6piQ_Lz9-8dR for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 08:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 01F4712D12B for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27181 invoked by uid 0); 4 Apr 2016 15:41:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2016 15:41:47 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id eFhi1s0172SSUrH01Fhldz; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:41:45 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Nal1iQz4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=kziv93cY1bsA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=xcDNN1kF_lgXf0HLKUsA:9 a=MWI3Zj8sM1B1MYrp:21 a=_49bIv_oDBUuvHpY:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Subject:From:To; bh=qKN4pcUbOzyXTbTqMAZDYH3MkjNbZOU6sWEY6U2/fko=; b=A/taC5Pl6QiQzsvyomtPGH7cxI5TXbFnq0hj8dqKcNFlVpajnsFuAGqm3YI4qlipaBi+FwJgPN Yb9C8aXoxd9veg6MwDenLfuahl3DTuvTtaCVCPgOyffK6UCzX1nCdF;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:42956 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1an6dM-0006kT-46 for teas@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:41:44 -0600
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <57028B27.8090402@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 11:41:27 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/j9hDqHWtnPJ4_JSHd-pXdR1YgyE>
Subject: [Teas] raw notes from this morning's session
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 15:41:51 -0000
Kudos to Matt for the note taking and all who contributed to the session and the notes! [Notes from 2016-01-28 interim: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-interim-2016-teas-1] > Agenda > TEAS Agenda For IETF 95 > TEAS Agenda For IETF 95 > Version: Mar 31, 2016 > > Monday, April 4th, 2016 > 10:00 - 12:30 - Monday Morning Session I > Room: Atlantico B > Presentation Start Time Duration Information > 0 10:00 10 Title: Administrivia & WG Status > Draft: > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-0.pptx > Presenter: Chairs (no questions/comments) > 1 10:10 10 Title: WG Draft updates > Draft: Many > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-1.pptx > Presenter: Chairs (no questions/comments) > 2 10:20 10 Title: Discussion on RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress Local Protection > Draft: > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-2.pptx > Presenter: Adrian Farrel Lou Berger: I find it useful that you labelled LSP-ingress in the final case (slide 5). Where does the LSP start in the other 2? Adrian Farrel: double-line on the slides is the LSP. The problem is that the head-end fails; the solution is how we get traffic to the destination. Eric Osborne: I'm not sure what's in and out of scope(on page 5), but if I'm interested in anything it's the third case Adrian Farrel: Thanks, that's helpful Eric Osborne: Are we just talking about RSVP LSPs? Adrian Farrel: Just RSVP for this WG Eric Osborne: Not everyone runs PE-PE RSVP... Greg Mirsky: I agree that OAM has to be considered. We also need to specify what type of protection or restoration we can deliver as that will define the mechanisms we can use for monitoring Adrian Farrel: so you're saying, whether it's 1+1 or 1:1 or 1:n protection, and for restoration whether it's repair after failure Lou Berger: FRR is missed; Adrian Farrel: FRR as currently defined cannot settle the ingress problem; FRR is a big problem... Lou Berger: do we want a solution that's tailored to work with FRR? Do we not care? Greg Mirsky: I think we can not use FRR but say segment protection Adrian Farrel: maybe say 'bypass tunnel'? Would that be less contentious? Eric Osborne: if I have to do something other than the FRR I already have I'm not that interested right now Gabriele Galimberti: would you also consider CE-PE link failures? This doesn't change the way you handle it but it changes detection Adrian Farrel: if you run LSPs from the CE you're interested in CE failure; if you run from the PE then it's PE failure. The main scope here is head-end LSP failure, wherever the LSP happens to run from. Gabriele Galimberti: CE failure requires the same actions Greg Mirsky: one more thing we need to define: what LSP head-end failure is. Adrian Farrel: yes Jeff Tantsura: More things we need to define: Do you want to merge back up and primary at merge-point? What do you want to do with LSPs? Adrian Farrel: challenge is to separate that out into the behaviour you want to define, rather than the techniques you want to use. Danger is that people say "I want to use FRR". Lou Berger: first focus on the problem before talking about solutions; (Questions) how many of you think it's a valuable problem? (reasonable number); only first and third use case receive interests. How many of you understand the discussed options sufficently to have an opinion on the three use cases (a few). Lou Berger: I feel we don't understand the problem well enough yet to discuss options here Jeff Tantsura: we can learn a lot from pseudowire protection discussions. Lou Berger: That's great, if you have any pointers, please send them to the list. I don't think we have a good enough understanding of the problems yet. Think that we need to further discuss what problem we'd like to solve with ingress protection on the list. Lou Berger: It's useful to hear from the room that there is interest in the WG continuing to work on the problem (Ingress protection). > 3 10:30 20 Title: Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress Local Protection > Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Egress Local Protection > Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection/ > Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection/ > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-3.pptx > Presenter: Huaimo Chen (for Ingress local protection draft) Pavan Beeram: for the scope are you referring to the FRR? Huaimo Chen: yes (for Egress local protection draft) Eric Osborne: I realize the ingress and egress are different but it'd be nice if the solutions were as close as possible. It doesn't make sense to have locally-scoped ingress protection and end-to-end egress Huaimo Chen: egress is also local Jeffery Zhang: we have a doc in MPLS for both RSVP and mLDP egress protection. Huaimo Chen: OK. I read Yimin's draft. Looks like there's overlap. Lou Berger: it'd be good to look at existing solutions, if they exist, expecially for egress protection. And also discuss on the list Lou Berger: you said this covers FRR. Do you think the scope of egress protection is limited to FRR? Huaimo Chen: only FRR at this stage Lou Berger: is the WG OK with egress protection excluding segment protection and using only FRR. Eric Osborne: as long as it's at least FRR, it doesn't bother me if you do other stuff too Lou Berger: in general we want to look at the broadest scope possible. Can narrow scope if there's a reason to do so but if not, we should cover both FRR and segment protection in this WG, even if it's just informative (beacuse nothing new is needed) > 4 10:50 30 Title: YANG Data Model for TE Topologies > > Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/ > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-4.pptx > Presenter: Xufeng Liu Lou Berger: for this presentation we're covering changes to the model that haven't really been discussed on-list Pavan Beeram: we've had quite a bit of dicussion off-list, so please use the WG list for further discussion Gert Grammel: (page 12), what do you mean by switching layer? where does this layer exist? Are you talking about ITU layers, which can all be switched? Or are you talking about things like MPLS and IP? It needs to be clarified. Fatai Zhang: are you going to define both transitional link and inter-layer lock? Xufeng Liu: yes Fatai Zhang: better to define one of them as we can then do more analysis on pros and cons, and then pick one Igor Bryskin: we don't talk about inter-layer leaks. I think inter-layer computations are an important problem to solve. It would be useful to be able to have separate topologies at different layers but allow computations across layers. Inter-layer lock Using SRLGs can achieve this, which has advantage compared with transitional link. Dieter Beller: during the weekly calls we discusssed the two approaches, and the inter-layer lock id also has some drawbacks (you need an admin entity to assign the lock IDs). The concept of transitional links has the advantage that it's based on links and only requires some extensions. Lou Berger: I think this has been informative for folks that aren't involved. Informal discussions are open to all, but please send updates to WG list to coordinate calls and send updates so everyone's on the same page. Igor Bryskin: I disagree with Dieter.... Lou Berger: I look forward to seeing that discussion on the list. And also the announcement for the next informal meeting. > 5 11:20 10 Title: RSVP Extensions For Re-optimization of Loosely Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (LSPs) > Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt/ > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-5.pptx > Presenter: Rakesh Gandhi Lou Berger: I'm having trouble understanding the need for another fragmentation mechanism - s2l was introduced for this in the first place. I'd like to understand the need for this one. I think this needs to be clarified before LC. Rakesh Gandhi: Problem is when we send one s2l at a time, head-end doesn't know when to start things like reoptimization. RFC 4875 has a combined message defined but there's an issue when things are fragmented. Lou Berger: I think this is a discussion to have offline, and I'd like to have it. I know this (fragmentation) wasn't in the original proposal and came in as a result of comments in MPLS WG. I think we need to make sure we're not overloading too many mechanisms, and that it's clear why the existing mechnisms are insufficient. > 6 11:30 10 Title: RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information > Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-6.pptx > Presenter: Matt Hartley (remote) <No questions> Lou Berger: A successful remote presentation! Thank you Matt (and Meetecho) > 7 11:40 15 Title: Framework for Abstraction and Control of Transport Networks > Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-7.pptx > Presenter: Daniele Ceccarelli Igor Bryskin: for a multi-domain network there will be inter-domain leaks. Daniele Ceccarelli: same concepts apply to inter-domain links as to access links Igor Bryskin: Daniele Ceccarelli: So maybe we should call them access links rather than inter-domain links Igor Bryskin: Everything you discussed could be done with two models Lou Berger: doesn't change whether we move fwd w/ this doc. Just they point better at each other Gert Grammel: I was confused between a customer service provider model (often cited) which is more a policy issue, vs a network model (client-server relationship) where considerations about visibility simply don't apply. So it's tricky to figure out what you're describing in the draft. The assumption is that a layer is controlled by an entity and it has a client that's controlled by another entity, but that's not always the case. Daniele Ceccarelli: multi-layer applies. if client and server are managed by the same entity then that's one issue... Gert Grammel: question is how to define a 'domain'? Daniele Ceccarelli: domain is everything managed by an MDSC. Could be tens of differnet networks but as long as they're managed by the same MDSC they're one domain Gert Grammel: so if you have three domains run by a single provider, is that one domain? Daniele Ceccarelli: customer sees it as a single domain, provider runs it as he prefers. Gert Grammel: so need to distinguish between customer domain vs technical domain. Lou Berger: it seems that there's room for better-aligned terminology. I know you did this with SDN terminology, but also should align with the yang terminology Daniele Ceccarelli: what's not aligned? Lou Berger: what Igor talked about - access points. Also whether the boxes in the figure can be referred as a PCE or not? Daniele Ceccarelli: the PNC can be a PCE or something else. Lou Berger: are you gonig to take another pass? Daniele Ceccarelli: well, the WG needs to approve before the draft gets adopted. Lou Berger: (poll) How many think this is ready for adoption? (reasonable number) Lou Berger: how many want another revision (two) Lou Berger: okay will poll for adoption. Question 1: is this work we should be doing in the WG (reasonable number) Lou Berger: Question 2:how many have read this draft? (slightly more) Lou Berger: Question 3: how many think this draft is a good foundation for the work? (more than the first one) Lou Berger: looks like we have good support in the room so we can take it to the list. > 8 11:55 10 Title: Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) > Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-8.pptx > Presenter: Sergio Belotti / Young Lee Lou Berger: Last time Scott Mansfield gave another presentation on info model, and it was mentioned to work together, how's that going? Sergio Belotti: That info model presentation (by Scott) focused on how to make use of the YANG model, which is different from the one presented here. Lou Berger: concern is that we'd end up with two information models modelling the samething differently Gert Grammel: is this a client-server relationship or a customer-provider relationship? Need to spell that out. Young Lee: This is based on ACTN requirements and framework - nothing to do with other SDO model (by Scott). We're just trying to capture information elements before designing a protocol. Lou Berger: we should make sure such models are orthogonal and there is no overlap, otherwise there will be conflict. Young Lee: but this is based on ACTN rather than anything else. Lou Berger: We should have more discussion on the list. We don't have to wait for a meeting to declare consensus but we do need to discuss. Lou Berger: we're running short of time, so cutting the discussion short here. > 9 12:05 10 Title: RSVP-TE Extensions For Associated Co-routed Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) > Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhishah-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir/ > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-9.pptx > Presenter: Rakesh Gandhi Pavan Beeram: So you're just adding the co-routed flag and the extension object? Rakesh Gandhi: yes - source, lsp-id and co-routed flag Pavan Beeram: and you're just proposing a flag to make it co-routed Rakesh Gandhi: Yes, and also the midpoint needs to assign a corouted bypass Lou Berger: But the egress node already has that information Rakesh Gandhi: Yes, but it doesn't say the LSP is co-routed Lou Berger: So you're saying there's ambiguity in the current spec? Rakesh Gandhi: Yes. If there's a loose hop, how does the egress know it should follow the same path? Lou Berger: So you're requiring co-routing? Rakesh Gandhi: yes Lou Berger: And then you're adding a hint for the transit LSR. But isn't this already in the path message? Rakesh Gandhi: But nodes can have multiple LSPs (e.g. during reoptimization) Lou Berger: OK. I think we need a better definition of what's missing from the current definitions (RFCs) and what the gap is in order to have agreement that we need to solve the problem. Feel free to send new draft text to list to get this discussion going. > 10 12:15 15 Title: The Use Cases for Using PCE as the Central Controller(PCECC) of LSPs > Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases/ > Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-10.pptx > Presenter: Quintin Zhao Dieter Beller: I found some negative statements in the draft about the RSVP solutions already deployed, and I have some concerns about that. Quintin Zhao: Customers decide this, if they prefer not implementing RSVP, we provide this solution. Lou Berger: people sometimes feel they have to destroy old solutions to define new ones; this isn't really necessary. Just focus on the new stuff. Jeff Tantsura:Need to think about SR and separation of the link state. This reminds me of openflow with its centralized controller. Adrian Farrel: I'm intrigued to see the last two speakers say that SDN is a bad idea Lou Berger: TEAS is a big tent, we can accomodate both approaches :) Lou Berger: thanks for coming, see you all tomorrow for the joint Yang session > Adjourn 12:30
- [Teas] raw notes from this morning's session Lou Berger