* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Idr Status Pages

Inter-Domain Routing (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Martin Vigoureux | 1994-Aug-15 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-106 idr minutes

Session 2019-11-18 1810-1910: Collyer - Audio stream - idr chatroom
Session 2019-11-21 1740-1840: Olivia - Audio stream - idr chatroom

Minutes

minutes-106-idr-00 minute



          IDR meeting at IETF 106 (version 1)
          
          Session I:  Monday,  18:10-19:10,  11/18/2019
          
          Room: Collyer
          
          0. Agenda bashing and Chair's slides (12 mins)
          
          Start Time: 18:10
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-note-well
          
          Presenter: John
          
          - Note Well
          - John talks about FlowSpec extensions. Lot of flowspec related draft
          continue to come in every meeting.Flowspec components types are
          pairs. Parsers cannot skip unknown components types. Not good for
          extensibility.
          - One way for extension is define new SAFI, but it is one-shot and cannot
          be extended later. Propose not to define new component types in existing
          flowspec AFI/SAFI. Should move forward with solution like Flowspecv2
          draft or something similar, which uses TLVs for components.
          
          ?(Akamai): Makes sense to Fix TLV oversight, which method doesn't
          matter.
          Jeff Haas:  PCEP picked rformat. Flowspec v2 also try to define firewall
          rule ordering. Flowspecs v2 should be taken further (rediscuss as it
          has been long enough).
          Igor Gashinsky(Verizon Media): Cannot extend flowspecs as it will make
          router failover. Let's fix it.
          John: Looks like consensus in room. Position of chair going forward is
          that you can discuss extension drafts but we want to prioritize groups
          time on getting TLV thing done, so that we can rollout extension drafts.
          Sue: As coauthor of flowspecV2, we should fix TLV problems. Suggestions
          are open on this. Will send out proposals on mailimg list.
          
          1. BGP Flowspec for L2VPN and Tunnels [Donald Eastlake] (10 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn/
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3/
          
          Start Time: 18:20
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessb-bgp-flowspec-for-l2vpn-and-tunnels
          
          Presenter: Donald
          
          Discussion:
          Sue: Purpose is to see if its ready for early code points, Implementation
          and feedback on the same.
          Jeff: Good idea to have a new pair of AFI/SAFI, using existing AFI/SAFI
          will break rules.
          Donald: New SAFI needs to be specified.
          Jeff: Existing AFI/SAFI usage will not work.
          John: as a WG member, fine with using existing SAFI.
          Sue: Quick experimentation going into this draft... Give code points
          even if we are fixing v2.
          John: Flowspec over new AFI/SAFI is fine, No impairment moving with this
          draft.
          Jeff: Combination of AFI/SAFI is important, SAFI registry 241 is reserved
          for private use and can be used.
          
          2. BGP YANG Model for Service Provider Networks [Mahesh Jethanandani]
          (10 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model/
          
          Start Time: 18:32
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessb-bgp-yang-model
          
          Presenter: Mahesh
          
          Discussion:
          Jeff: Do we differentiate internal and External confederations
          Randy: You could have internal-conferations and external-confederations.
          Jeff: We have two options in the model, please take a look and see which
          one makes sense.
          Stephane: Here we are talking about operational state or configuration
          state?
          Jeff: This is for operational state.
          Rudiger Volk: A router support YANG models should support 4-byte ASes.
          Ruediger: Are we expecting Yang modelling is going to happen on Routers
          not with 4byte AS
          Acee: I don't think you're gonna find somebody implementing the yang
          model that doesn't support 4-byte AS. How many implementations are on
          Yang Model
          Jeff: For 4-Byte AS its supporting RFC 4398
          Sue: Acee is this a work for you? Keychain model...
          Acee: We have everything you need... key rollover exists... CLI version
          have been there since long, not yang model.
          Donald: Is key rollover RFC 4808?
          Acee: Need to check on this.
          Jeff: If model supported by Acee yang model support then this will be
          supported by inheritance
          Stephane: TCP AO?
          Acee: IPsec is not for TCP.
          Acee: For IPsec - need to define.
          Jeff: BGP Confed is supported by some implementations
          Acee: We looked into TCP OA model while doing yang model.
          Sue: Implementations exists... can these things get standard. Put together
          description, separate draft...
          Acee: For IGP model, draw a line and no more feature after that. Features
          needs to come in augmentation. Part of base model but lack ref.
          Haibo Wang: How to support multiple BGP instances?
          Sue: Excellent question, but think it will not be covered in this model.
          Jeff: NMDA model will give some info being looked for.
          Alvaro: Will you document these feature somewhere?
          Sue: Some documentation is needed. Break doc into multiple docs.
          Alvaro: Document these features. Some info can be put into draft.
          Acee: Some info can be put in description in yang model, does not apply
          for everything.
          John: In interest of time, we need to cut short here. We can continue
          later.
          
          3. BGP Extensions for IDs Allocation [Huaimo Chen] (5 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext/
          
          Start Time : 18:49
          
          Slides :
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessb-bgp-extensions-for-ids-allocation
          
          Presenter: Huaimo
          
          Discussion:
          - Request for adoption
          - No questions asked/discussed.
          
          4. BGP Flow Specification for SRv6 [Huaimo Chen] (5 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6/
          
          Start Time : 18:52
          
          Slides :
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessb-bgp-flow-specification-for-srv6
          
          Presenter: Huaimo
          
          Discussion:
          Sue: Does Flowspec for SRv6 need to harmonize with regular IPv6?
          Huaimo: We extend this to multiple domains inside SRH.
          Sue: How is SRv6 working coming?
          Acee: Is there a requirement or framework for this? Draft for every
          encap.
          Sue: Additional request for flowspec comes... Original def of Flowspec
          was a targeted audience/request... How is it in deployment? Talk about
          implementation
          Acee: Header doc is done...
          Keyur: Suggest to use flowspecv2 and single SAFI to support different
          TLVs. Avoid SAFI explosion
          Jeff: Flowspecs filter getting used for 2 big cases - ddos(firewall)
          and traffic engineering purpose.
          
          5. SR Path Ingress Protection [Huaimo Chen] (5 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-idr-sr-ingress-protection/
          
          Start Time : 18:58
          
          Slides :
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessb-sr-path-ingress-protection
          
          Presenter: Huaimo
          
          Discussion:
          Sue:  Where are spring policies being used for? Call for operators input
          on the new features.
          Andrew: Liquid telecom is using SR policies. Like using SR policy to
          route traffic. A simpler way maybe to send separate paths to the nodes
          and use community.
          Sue: Request for similar comments.
          
          6. Revised BGP Maximum Prefix Limits [Job Snijders] (10 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sa-idr-maxprefix/
          
          Start Time : 19:02
          
          Slides :
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessb-revised-bgp-maximum-prefix-limits
          
          Presenter: Job Snijders
          
          Discussion:
          John: Make your points on mailing list and discuss.
          
          Session Ends here : 19:15
          
          Thanks.
          
          [3 minutes for switching]
          
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          
          
          Session II:  Thursday,  17:40-18:40,  11/21/2019
          
          Room: Olivia
          
          0. Agenda bashing (2 mins)
          
          Start time: 17:40
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-note-well
          
                  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-auto-discovery-design-team-chairs
          
          Presenter: John
          
          Discussion:
          John talks about auto discovery.
          John: We did not have clear conclusion last time we discussed. Drafts
          are very close in semantics.
          Acee: All drafts have copied mine (joke).
          John: This is time to get design team to get together and come up with one
          unified design by next IETF. Design team to be put together in 2weeks.
          Randy: Conclude by next IETF? Its unrealistic goal to conclude by next
          IETF.
          John: Point is well taken.
          John: Design team is not long term.
          Susan: There will be open meetings on webex, anyone can participate.
          
          1. BGP Provisioned IPsec Tunnel Configuration [Jun Hu] (10 mins)
             https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec/
             https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-transport-mode/
          
          Start time: 17:46
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-bgp-provisioned-ipsec-tunnel-configuration
          
          Presenter: Hu Jun
          
          Discussion:
          Stephen: With these two drafts is chair planning to obsolete 6566?
          Sue: I think they are different, I need to check on how much is overlap. I
          will need opinion
          John: Does anyone have reason why we should not obsolete 6566
          Linda: How do we extend BGP updates? We are going through untrusted
          domain here.
          Hu: This is just a control plane protocol, there are mechanism like
          outbound-filters which can be used.
          Linda: Is this info encrypted. You propose sub-tlv¡¯s which can be
          encoded in nexthop?
          Hu: That is already included in draft.
          Jeff: Everything in tunnel attribute has security concern.
          Jeff: For SRv6 will may go through internet, the security consideration
          may change a little bit.
          Sue: I need more info to take decision on this draft.
          Sue: Do you feel this draft address all security end points? This will
          help take a call on working group adoption.
          Hu: mailing list has answer.
          Jeff: Work is worth to be working on but taking care of security is
          challenging
          
          2. SDWAN WAN Ports Property Advertisement in BGP UPDATE [Linda Dunbar]
          (10 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-port-safi/
          
          Start time: 18:01
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-sdwan-wan-ports-property-advertisement-in-bgp-update
          
          Presenter: Linda Dunbar
          
          Discussion:
          John£ºDoes it mean you want to ship it or make it for demo? This looks
          like standard track.
          Acee: Think this is a standard track.
          John: To demonstrate how BGP is used? Do you want to try this as demo
          or ship?
          Linda: Its for shipping.
          John: Do you think its worth solution
          Linda: Yes
          John: FCFS cannot ask as standard, is it correct?
          Linda: Other content can be merged together.
          Acee: Read the document¡­ thought standard is correct.
          
          3. Deprecation of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP [Sriram Kotikalapudi]
          (10 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set/
          
          Start time: 18:12
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-deprecation-of-as-set-and-as-confed-set-in-bgp
          
          Presenter: Sriram, Jeff Haas
          
          Discussion:
          Sue: There is some desire to see RFC 4276¡­ This might not be problem
          you are thinking. Idea is to document what is existing and not to do
          new feature.
          Jeff: No new code is needed to do correct thing here¡­ implementation
          take care of this. Policy can be added to match and drop prefix. RPKI
          filtering is becoming more common.
          Warren: It is a huge job to put RFC 4271 into full standard.
          Jared: Thanks for finding AS¡¯s. We want to clear or drop these there
          should be some soft knob to allow to drop.
          God: Removing RFC is a huge job
          Sue: This needs to happen soon or later
          Igor: This is good and needs to be done. Can you give people a knob as
          a workaround? ¨C Default way to doing aggregation. Knob will be very
          helpful
          Ruediger: Should consider to clear up the 2 byte ASes.
          Ruediger: Deprecating some artifacts we should also consider cleanup 2
          Byte AS, as far as possible.
          
          4. Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP [Ketan Talaulikar]
          (5 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy/
          
          Start time: 18:29
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-advertising-segment-routing-policies-in-bgp
          
          Presenter: Ketan
          
          Discussion:
          No questions, time running short
          
          5. Application Specific Attributes Advertisement with BGP Link-State
          [Ketan Talaulikar] (5 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr/
          
          Start time: 18:30
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-advertising-segment-routing-policies-in-bgp
          
          Presenter: Ketan
          
          Discussion:
          Susan: Does this document should be a stand-alone document?
          Acee: Think so, the IGP drafts move faster. There are 2 docs in queue
          for review.
          
          6. BGP Flexible Color-Based Tunnel Selection [Yimin Shen] (10 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shen-idr-flexible-color-tunnel-selection/
          
          
          Start time:18:32
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-bgp-flexible-color-based-tunnel-selection
          
          Presenter: Yimin Shen
          
          Discussion:
          Sue: Have you shown this to spring folks? It¡¯s worth discussing.
          Yimin: we have not
          Sue: Can you compare it with the use of Tunnel Encap attribute for color
          in Jun¡¯s draft other than the IPsec part?
          Yimin: Tunnel encap path attribute applies to prefix tunnels are built
          upon¡­
          John: Please take this offline.
          
          7. Destination-IP-Origin-AS Filter for BGP Flow Specification [Haibo Wang]
          (5 mins)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-idr-flowspec-dip-origin-as-filter/
          
          
          Start time: 18:41
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-destination-ip-origin-as-filter-for-bgp-flow-specification
          
          Presenter: Wang Haibo
          
          Discussion:
          Jeff: Review comments on mailing list stand .pay attention¡­ Flowspec
          operates as firewall rules, here crosses the boundary between firewall
          and RIB.
          Acee: I agree to Jeff. Have concern about putting all BGP attributes to
          FIB.
          Jeff: AS number and other BGP attributes are never in FIB. It is not a
          good idea.
          Aijun Wang: Maybe just consider the AS number for flexible traffic
          steering.
          Jie: You need to advertise only one rule from the server, how it is
          installed in device is implementation specific. Can be expanded to
          several rules, or just one.
          
          8. Color Operation with BGP Label Unicast [Louis Chan] (5 mins if time
          permits)
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2/
          
          Start time: NA (Follow on mailing list)
          
          Slides:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-color-operation-with-bgp-lu
          
          John: To be followed on mailing list, time is up... cannot be
          accommodated.
          
          End Time: 18:46
          
          Session ends here @ 18:46
          
          Thanks.
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/idr/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -