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

Mpls Status Pages

Multiprotocol Label Switching (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas, Deborah Brungard | 1997-Mar-03 —  

IETF-99 mpls minutes

Session 2017-07-18 1330-1530: Congress Hall II - Audio stream - mpls chatroom
Session 2017-07-21 0930-1130: Congress Hall III - Audio stream - mpls chatroom


minutes-99-mpls-00 minutes

          Welcome to Etherpad!
          This pad text is synchronized as you type, so that everyone viewing
          this page sees the same text. This allows you to collaborate seamlessly
          on documents!
          Get involved with Etherpad at http://etherpad.org
          1 . Agenda bashing, WG status reports    Presenter:  Chairs
          Disclose IPR as soon as known.
          George is not travelling this time.
          Tarek flight cancelled and not here. Should arrive later today.
          Jeff Hass: Could you please move BFD presentation earlier today instead
          of the last.
          Loa: Moved to slot #4 (at the Mach's presentation)
          Errata approved for RFC3031/5002.
          3 new RFCs.
          One new WG document.
          Opportunist encryption: will expire. Need student.
          Stewart: what is the issue?
          Loa: EXP RFC. Couldn't find a student, had lost one. No technical issue.
          2. draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction -  Presenter:
          Shaowen Ma
          Unified source routing MPLS label stacking.
          TE used as overlay.
          Bruno: Orange: What document trying to specify can be summarised in one
          sentencce. Node MPLS not capable, can use IP tunnel.
          Shaowen Ma: Use TE stack. You can have the per hop behaviour.
          Bruno: Can use MPLS today.
          Shaowen Ma: purpose of this draft is how to leverage existing
          capability. Informational draft.
          Bruno: It is standards track document.
          Shaowen Ma: We want to reduce the MPLS stack. No need to add MPLS
          labels. Remember UDP port source value.
          Reuse the cached value. Difference from exsiting forwarding capability.
          Bruno: MPLS and UDP is already specified.
          Xiaohu: MPLS over UDP packet. No need to add reachble label.
          Loa: continue on the list.
          Bruno: relatiosnhip between -??- draft.
          Stewart Bryant: still talking. Need architecture. Not sure how many
          drafts it will take.
          Bruno: As spring co-chair, why MPS WG chosen?
          Loa: Relation with multiple working groups. TEAS/SPRING WG could be
          Bruno: This draft will have a better feedback in spring.
          Ahmed Bashandi: What is new here. Running SR over IP tunnel?
          Xiaohu: There is no need to have explicit tunnel. MPLS in UDP.
          Loa: Take it to the list.
          ??:  Push label stack on the host. MSD is not an issue.
          Shaowen Ma: Middle node is an issue pushing the stack.
          3 draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining - Presenter: Xiaohu
          No questions.
          4 draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed - Presenter: Greg Mirsky, Carlos (Cisco)
          First, Carlos Pignataro Presenting:
          Stewart: Strict source routing from A to G? Due to ECMP path can be
          any direction.
          Carlos: No strict paths.
          Stewart: falsely detect a failure. Failure forward or reverse still
          a failure.
          Carlos: Ability to select multiple path and correlate needed - there
          is ambiguity.
          Jeff Hass: Not required operationally.  (comment on the Slide before
          the switching over to a different )
          Jeff Haas: 5884 how to bootstrap a session - updates the 5884 procedure.
          Stewart: Why do we want to modify and start a new one.
          Jeff Haas: Using BFD. Doing unidirectional test. Failure on the return
          path can falsely deletect the failure.  This does not always work. BFD
          is always bidirectional.
          Second, Greg Presenting:
          In some cases create co-routed BFD session. Select more reliable reverse
          path. Can use reverse LSP, TP like bidirectional LSP but does not have
          IP encap.
          Carlos: 5884 can use LSP return path if bidirectional LSP.
          Greg: providing a mechnaism to make it detereministic.
          Loa: Do you support / agreement reached?
          Carlos: Upto the WG. Not all questions answered.
          Jeff Haas: 1. MPLS WG says useful prob to solve. 2. Issues in the
          document and how to address if 1 is yes. 3. Minimal 5884 procedureal
          updates. Tackle in that order.
          5 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath - Presenter: Mach Chen
          Loa: 3.5 years old. We have a 6 people.
          Agree with Mach. Need much more WG document. Comments on the list.
          6   draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-framework - Presenter:Stewart Bryant
          Synonyous labels. Present all 4 drafts.
          Loadbalancing issue:
          Carlos: what are chances of that happening?
          Stewart: check the deployment and see if that is an issue.
          Carlos: How important is this limitation for this document?
          Stewart: Strictly entropy label only
          Carlos: ??
          Stewart: need to announce to fulful this
          George: In some older system, specific LC, egress and ingress LCs.
          Stewart: ??
          George: Yes, ELI include stack depth for load balancing.
          Stewart: There are some routers that do that - use ELI and other
          things. Lot of poeple not expecting this behaviour.
          7 draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels - Presenter: Harish Sitaraman
          Jeff Tantsura:  Whys stack labels?
          Harish: Forwarding plane decoupled from data plane.  FIB size.
          Jeff: motivation?
          Harish: amount of FIB size.
          Loa: Early allocation only WG document?
          Deborah: Yes, has to be WG document, has to be stable document.
          Loa: Ealy allocation premature. have to wait.
          Pavan: Co-authos asking for adoption and then get early allocation
          code points.
          8  draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang - Presenter: Xufeng
          Loa: Yang dr email came late.
          Loa: we are on track to update.
          Lou: New IPR rules.
          Greg: How to decide the Evaluation and relevance.
          Lou: WG /chair decides what to do with IPR. And evaluate the disclosures.
          Text/paragraphs can be removed from the draft.
          WG may not work on that technology.
          Stewart: why present here?
          Loa: have a document that needs this discussions.
          Stewart: have a problem?
          Loa: WG draft/LC. Got IPR. Have withdrawn the comments and draft
          changed. IPR still holds. Have over disclosure in this case?
          Lou: Change / continue the document.
          Lou: as a WG you can look at the document and say not going to support it.
          Stewart: Difficult to learn the licensing term. Need court to decide.
          MPLS WG session II - Friday
          1 - Kireeti Presents
          Greg Mirsky: well known problem in IGP in split areas
          Loa: for a WG document? there is no discussions on the mailing list?
          Kireeti: did not know this is relevant to rings.. we talked to
          customers.. once we make a deceision we will bring it to the
          list.. present in the update..
          Kireeti: is the WG interested in this problem?
          Loa: I have not seen any discussions on the mailing list
          Kireeti: So far, discussions on how to extend RSVP for RMR happened
          in/with the WG
              - none.
          2. Greg Mirsky presents
          a. draft-mirsky-spring-bfd
          Questions: none
          b. Point-to-Point MPLS LSP
          Loa: send an email to get the WG's opinion on continuing this work in
          MPLS or BFD WG
          c. draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
              - Greg: I think this work more belongs to MPLS WG
          3. Tarek Saad presnets
          Greg: we need to think about synonymous flow labels
          Lou: less of a concern about TTL, but TC seems suitable to have in the
          label stack
          4. Adrian Farrel presents:
          Q: I'd like you to present to SPRING, as it is interesting to SPRING
          too. More OAM part to be announced..
          Adrian: we spoke to SPRING about this.. and we were on the agenda this
          time.. on where it should be MPLS/SPRING WG?
          BRUNO: for consistency anything we do for MPLS, can be done for SRV6.
          Adrian: less than half of the work is in SPRING at the moment
          LOa: can we take this offline to the list
          Stewart: hopefully, we can inherit a bunch of MPLS OAM, but it need to
          be worked

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