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

Pals Status Pages

Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas, Deborah Brungard | 2014-Oct-31 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-99 pals minutes

Session 2017-07-17 1740-1840: Congress Hall I - Audio stream - pals chatroom

Minutes

minutes-99-pals-01 minutes



          **********************************************************************
          IETF 99 PALS - Monday, 17 July 2017 - 17:40-18:40 Room: Congress Hall I
          45/60 min allocated; ** Please note the slot placement may be adjusted.)
          **********************************************************************
          Chairs: Stewart Bryant and Andy Malis Secretary: David Sinicrope (x =
          slide sets NOT received as of 16 July 2017 22:00 Prague time)
          
          1. 15 min - Agenda bash, WG Agenda and Status - Andy MALIS and Stewart
          BRYANT Andy opened the meeting at 17:45. See the Chair's Report slides.
          No changes to the agenda were proposed.
          
          No comments or questions.
          
          2. 20 min - Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED - Stewart BRYANT
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw
          Objective: Calling out potential misordering issue with sending Ethernet
          packets in PWs with out the control word.
          
          Stewart presented the slides uploaded to the materials pages. See the
          slides posted. In 2010, there have been MAC addrs with 0x4 and 0x6
          assigned. It is also "legal" to use any address in local address space
          so could have had local addresses for quite a while.  Assumption has
          been invalide for some time but has caused issues more recently.
          
          Some loadbalancing is looking below MPLS label stack and seeing 0x4 and
          0x6 and mistakenly interpreting as IP packets and then using IP 5 tuple
          loadbalancing.
          
          Slide before Side Effects
          Dave Sinicrope: what about the existing platforms that don't support
          CW. Should there be stronger language to warn against the platforms that
          don't support CW.
          Ingas: 5-6 years - platform lifetime most that didn't support are long
          gone
          Stewart: do we add a statement that recommends replacement or update of
          legacy equipment
          Ignas: I recommend MUST
          Pat: prefer MUST - draft makes it clear that consequences of not using
          the CW can be severe. MAC address randomization for local address space,
          which is increasingly being recommended for wifi, uses whole local
          space. The local address space should be noted in the draft
          Himanshu: Likes RECOMMENDED vs MUST. We've discussed this before. A lot
          of legacy deployments that don't use CW.
          Stewart: text says that if ingress AND egress support, you must support
          it. Previous discussion was only on OAM
          Himanshu:  Not really.  It was discussed because MAC using 0x4 and 0x6
          were messing up ECMP.  OK with conditional language (if both support
          MUST use)
          Stewart: right if both support must do.. Don't invalidate existing
          install base although existing install base getting smaller
          Himanshu: less traction with L2VPN, but would still leave it as
          recommended. Operators are aware of this.
          Glenn: mandating makes a difference.  IETF should be clear that protocol
          should be used to not invalidate a significant address space. Should
          also add that equipment that does not support this is not recommended.
          If not you should at least highlight the problems it causes.
          Stewart: recommend phasing out of equipment
          Ignas: operators are surprisingly unaware of this problem.  New shiny
          router dropping packets.  Perhaps from IETF this is understood, but tiny
          fraction of those experiencing it.  Documenting and having a reference
          for a BCP would be the right way to go.
          Andy: this has been discussed on the NANOG email list
          Himanshu: This is an old problem.    Can't put phase out language
          Dave: can soften language to recommend configuration, upgrade or
          enhancement
          Greg:  Other PWs have mandatory CW if both ends support.
          Stewart: there may be concensus on this
          Andy: yes
          Deborah: we want our documents to be clear about problems that may
          be faced.  Its our responsibility to inform users of problems in the
          specifications.
          Himanshu: noting the recommendation as being mandatory, is OK, but
          recommending phase out is not needed
          Glenn: On old vs. new equipement, there is no way to prohibit traffic
          with addresses starting with 0x4 and 0x6 from being sent to old equipment.
          An operator complained to the IEEE RAC that their addresses had a problem
          because 0x4 or 0x6 packets were dropped
          Himanshu: these ethernet servies have been humming for a while. Not sure
          routers will run into this problem given there is much more processing
          than just doing ECMP.  Not in favor of language recommending phase out.
          Andy: Noted
          Stewart: Noted that Matthew Bocci will shepherd document. Recommended that
          we start the document adoption process and should be adopted by WG. Sends
          important message to IEEE that we are taking this seriously. Time scale
          is RFC Editor by Singapore. "Rush" is because the problem has become
          more visible. Will hand to Matthew to start the process.
          Dave: we should send liaisons to other organizations that use RFC4448 to
          notify them of the issue and ask that this be taken into consideration
          in their specifications
          Stewart: yes we will send a liaison to other SDOs
          
          
          3. 10 min - YANG Data Model for PW Protocol - Fangwei HU
          https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-pals-pw-yang-02 Objective:
          Soliciting review and feedback from WG
          Fangwei presented slides
          
          Himanshu: almost all of this in L2VPN YANG data model.  Multisegment part
          is not there.  PW a separate container.  Extend that vs. creating an
          new tree.
          Andy: there is an existing WG draft in BESS.  May be better to merge
          your work into the work going on in BESS.
          Fangwei: one option. how about moving LDP PW work here
          Andy: but most of the work is done
          Himanshu: doesn't make sense
          Fangwei: will move MS PW modeling to that model
          Himanshu: I'm one of the authors of the L2VPN model, just forked out PW
          and most of the info is there.  Most of the FR, ATM, PW can be put there,
          and so can the MSPW.
          Stewart: send text to be incorporated to the other model authors
          Himanshu: yes we should coordinate that.
          
          Andy adjourned the meeting at 18:27 local time
          
          
          
          
          **********************************************************************
          Overflow (Will be presented if time permits.)
          **********************************************************************
          
          xx. - None currently
          
          **********************************************************************
          REMOTE INFORMATION FOR THE PALS SESSION(S)
          **********************************************************************
          Remote Participation Info:
          http://www.ietf.org/meeting/99/remote-participation.html
          
          - No WebEx
          
          - IETF 99 Agenda with Audio and Jabber links:
          https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/99/
          
          



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