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

Ospf Status Pages

Open Shortest Path First IGP (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alia Atlas, Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard | 1988-Mar-01 —  

IETF-100 ospf minutes

Session 2017-11-16 0930-1200: Bras Basah - Audio stream - ospf chatroom


minutes-100-ospf-00 minutes

             IS-IS/OSPF WG Agenda IETF-100
          Time Slot (150m): Thursday, November 16, 2017 09:30-12:00 (GMT+8)
          Scribe: Ayan Banerjee (ayabaner) <ayabaner@cisco.com>
            * Intro, Adminastriva, Document Status
                o Presenter: IS-IS Chairs <mailto:isis-chairs@ietf.org> and OSPF
                  Chairs <mailto:ospf-chairs@ietf.org> (Acee Lindem
                  <mailto:acee@cisco.com>, Abhay Roy <mailto:akr@cisco.com>,
                  Christian Hopps <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>, Hannes Gredler
           Discussion of merging WGs:
             Chris Hopps: Let's discuss merging the two WGs.
             Acee: Initially against merger but now doesn't feel it is that bad due
             to advances in OSPFv3 TLV encoding and OSPFv2 prefix/link attributes.
             Chris Bowers: Thinks having IS-IS and OSPF together will have
             long-term benefits.
          Document Status:
             Chris Bowers: June changes removed ERO and binding SID. Binding SID
             is needed.
             Jeff Tantsura: What about OSPF?
             Alia Atlas: ERO was not specified and didn't relate to SPRING working
             documents. Behavior and archiecture were not specified.
             Chris Hopps: Are we aligned?
             Jeff Tantsura: What is Chris worried about?
             Chris Hopps: The SR Binding TLV is needed to support context mirroring
             which is implmented.
             Jeff Tantsura: Binding SID could be published with use cases.
             Ketan Talaulikar: Whatever usage of ERO is removed so binding SID
             could also be removed.
             Shraddha Hedge: The binding SID TLVs are not implemented right
             now. There is a use case that could be added in a separate draft.
             Acee: Usage of Binding SID for context mirroring is sub-optimal. If
             required, we will define an OSPF Sub-TLV and SID for this purpose.
             Alia Atlas: OSPFv2 Segment Routing will be sent to the IESG with
             other SPRING documents.
             Chris Hopps: Is IS-IS YANG model in sync with OSPF?
             Acee: Some updates needed - will discuss with co-authors.
            * OSPF Graceful Restart Enhancements
                o Presenter: Acee Lindem <mailto:acee@cisco.com>
                o Document:
              Shraddha Hedge: If you generalize the first, you need to handle the
              case where the peer router is slow forming an adjacency.
              Acee: Could defer convergence if any neighbors are in Exchange or
              greater state.
            * OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement
                o Presenter: Ketan Jivan Talaulikar <mailto:ketant@cisco.com>
                o Document:
              Acee Lindem: Does anybody have any reservations to requesting early
              IANA allocation for this draft?
                           No objections in the room.
            * ISIS Segment Routing Flexible Algorithm
                o Presenter: Shraddha Hedge <mailto:shraddha@juniper.net>
                o Document:
              Chris Hopps: Why are user defined algorithms needed?
              Shraddha: Constraints cannot be standardized.
              Dhruv Dhody: PCE has object types for metric types. Maybe metric
              types in PCE could be used.
              Ville Hallivuori: One algorithm conflict disable an algorith in
              the domain?
              Shraddha: If there is a chance of looping, you must revert to
              default behavior.
              Chris Hopps: This a misconfiguration and we don't need to optimize.
              Bruno: In theory, you need topology ID as well. With SR, we have
              two algorithms and these cannot be redefined.
              Shraddha: We don't use standard algorithms for user defined. Metric
              types are also standardized.
              Bruno: Standardized algorithm with user defined metric?
              Shraddha: If you have an algorithm that needs to be standarized,
              can go to IANA.
              Ketan: It is possible to define strict SPF with TE metric type.
              Stephane: This is not an algorithm, it is contraints for SPF.
              Shraddha: There are Sub-TLVs with contraints.
              Stephane: Constraints can be independent of algorithms.
              Shraddha: We will look at decoupling the algorthm and constraint
              Chris: MRT algorithms could be defined as standard
              algorithms. Constraints can be used with standard algorthims.
              Bruno: Could add standard algorithm field to existing TLVs.
              Stephane: Maybe could be made flexible by reusing TE objects.
              Acee: Need to handle case where multi-homed prefix is advertised
              with different algorithms by different routers.
              Acee: IPR exists on draft.
              Dhruv: Please push IPR declaration to the Working Group.
            * IS-IS TE Attributes per application
                o Presenter: Acee Lindem for Les Ginsberg
                o Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-app/
            Chris Bowers: Flex Algorithm should not be referenced since it is not
            a WG document.
            Chris Bowers: There are differences between explicit and implicit
            * Enablement Discussion
             Chris Hopps goes through history of draft and his perspective on the
             adoption of the enablement draft.
             Chris Hopps: Will discuss enablement in next topic.
             Chris Hopps: Do we need explicit enablement decoupled from attribute
             Acee: It is dependent on algorithm. For all but TE, it is clear that
             it is not necessary.
             Chris Bowers: With both documents WG documents, it is a difficult
             question. I see need for enablement draft. Solves immediate problem.
             Alia Atlas: How does enablement related to TEAS and GMPLS?
             Ketan: Application specific values is a problem that we need to solve.
             Shraddha: There are sometimes different solutions to the same problem
             in IETF.
             Chris Bowers: WG adopted IS-IS TE attributes draft didn't address
             enablement. Could adopt both drafts.
             Bruno: Application specific information is theoretical.
             Stephane: Application specific attributes could be complex.
             Chris Hopps: It is not that complex that it can't be implmented.
             Chris Bowers: Could be deployment complexities.
             Chris Hopps: We are not going to decide this today.
             Acee: There are much bigger issues in OSPF than IS-IS with the number
             of LSAs required for non-TE applications. In the case of OSPF, this
             is more important than how TE enablement is handled.
           * More Merging Workgroups
             Chris Hopps:
             Alia Atlas: Polling of who would only attend OSPF or IS-IS but
             not both>
             Name for New WG:
                    LSR - Link State Routing
                    IGP-LS - IGP - Link State
                    LaSeR - Link State Routing

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