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

Spring Status Pages

Source Packet Routing in Networking (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Martin Vigoureux | 2013-Oct-25 —  

IETF-102 spring minutes

Session 2018-07-16 1330-1530: Duluth - Audio stream - spring chatroom


minutes-102-spring-00 minute

          SPRING WG - Source Packet Routing in Networking
                  Monday, July 16, 2018
                  13:30-15:30                        Monday Afternoon session I
                  Room:    Duluth
          Chairs:  Bruno Decraene
                   Rob Shakir
          o Administrativia
          - Note Well
          - Scribe
          - Blue Sheets
          - Document Status                        15        minutes        13:30
          Rob: new charter need to focus on deployability of SR, the operational
          aspects of deploying SR.
          Rob: due to lack of tight agenda, the SR-TE-policy will be discussed in
          IDR WG, multicast draft in PIM.
          Jeff T: Multicast draft will also be discussed in RTGwg
          o SR YANG model
          slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=521
          Yingzhen                5 minutes                13:45
          It has been 2 years since we first presented it. It is very stable now.
          Main point: SR Global Block for entire network configuration; Maxi SID;
          Define a Transport Type at the very beginning.
          We think the feature wise is complete. If you have any concern, please
          voice. we think it is ready for WGLC
          discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=757
          Bruno: we will Yang doctor review, then start the WGLC.
          [D Jain Cisco] will common types for SR be defined in this module or
          [A] Two models are defined within this draft, one of which defines the
          common types.
          [Jeff T] the initial idea to have base here and reference other YANG
          models. There are many others being developed so far.
          [A] Encourage authors of other YANG models to reference this one if they
          need common types for SR.
          (Chairs note - t=0, 13:45)
          o SR policy
          slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=900
          Ketan                10 minutes                13:50
          Major change: the document is re-organized, focus on Core SR
          policy. Others are moved to other documents.
          discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=1190
          [Andrew Stone Nokia] There is a BGP extension for SR-TE policy. Any
          extension for PCEP?
          [Ketan] Partially covered in BGP
          [Dhruv Huawei] we have a document covered in PCE WG. I can send the link
          [Harish Sitaraman Juniper] There are symbolic names for SR-TE policy. Any
          extension for the BGP SR-TE draft?
          [Ketan] the latest version of BGP has that included
          [Harish] the draft said the name must not be used as policy
          [Ketan] Information model has an index.  Name is not unique.
          [Sue Hares] are you going to harmonize BGP and PCEP extension? we should
          follow up afterwards.
          (note: 8:10)
          slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=1399
          Objective of the document is to document implementation aspects and
          which WG should cover what aspects
          Asking for WG adoption.
          discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=1740
          [Rob] Few challenges with adopting this draft. A lot are implementations
          specific e.g. splitting functionality across software modules, some of
          which may be implementation specific. What constitute Traffic Steering,
          what is traffic policy. Given that this document discuss path computation
          we need discussion with TEAS.
          We need to go through these discussions before we can kick of the
          adoption call.
          [A] Some part are conceptual, they don't have to be implemented as
          [Rob] May be editorial, some editorial restructuring may help.
          (note 16:50)
          o NSH and Segment Routing Integration for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
          slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=1914
          Jim Guichard                10 minutes                14:00
          The purpose of the draft to clarify the confusion people think that
          SFC might be competing with SR. The truth is NOT. SFC is complimentary
          to SPRING.
          SFC NSH  Header can work with any transport technology.
          NSH can integrate with SR for identifying flow. Using NSH to identify
          which context.
          discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=2330
          [Andrew D Nokia] we would like people to look at this carefully. SFC
          was done independently from transport layer. The more you put service
          into transport layer, the messier it gets. I support this separation
          proposed by the draft.
          o Service Programming with Segment Routing
          Fran├žois Clad                5 minutes                14:10
          slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=2415
          Service are integrated with SR policies.
          discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=2766
          Bruno: are you going to utilize existing way to carry the metadata or
          specify a new way to carry metadata?
          Francois: we plan to create a new metadata TLV.
          Joe Harlpern: you are avoiding interoperability discussion. we have SFC
          over MPLS, SFC over IPv6. What you are doing is reinventing entire new
          thing. SR is not new to invent completely new
          Francois: NSH needs a lot of state in the network
          Joe Halpern: can you name a few "state"? yes there are trade-off, but
          we can't reinvent a new TLV for every corner case
          Jim Guichard: Let's use the technology that we have developed, rather
          than reinvent everything. Let's collaborate, lets' not reinvent it.
          Zafar Ali: if we are afraid of touching anything new, then we can't do
          anything. What is wrong to improve to remove layers in the network?
          Andrew D Nokia: please don't make statement on STATE. NSH is for services,
          SR for transport. It's not because we can make it simpler for a simpler
          use case, that we need to develop a new solution. Whole picture would
          be more complex both for vendors and operators.
          Rob: cutting the line.
          [Jabber: Greg] how you envision separation of Transport OAM and Service
          [A] Would use the same solution to check the transport and the
          service. There is another draft on OAM, I will check if this is covered.
          Rob, Bruno: continue the talk offline.
          o SRv6 Network Programming
          Pablo Camarillo                10 minutes                14:15
          Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=3340
          Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=3720
          Ron Bonica (Juniper): why is it necessary to re-encode VPN MPLS label?
          why need to move the VPN info into the IP destination address?
          Darren (Cisco):
          it is about the IPv6 SR data plane vs MPLS data plane.
          to be answered in text [?]
          Joel Halpern: more confused about the Transit SIDs.
          [A] disagreement with your reading of the draft
          Uma: related draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane. SRv6 can be used for
          underlay, when you remove TE tunnel. Draft requires LTE network to
          rely on IPv6 addresses while currnet deployement may use MPLS or IPv4
          transport. GTP separation is not good.
          o Node Protection for SR-TE Paths
          Chris Bowers                10 minutes                14:25
          Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=4090
          Remotely presented.
          Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=4900
          Bruno: which WG (RTGWG or SPRING)?
          Chris: more appropriate in SPRING. The need to get to SR-TE path
          Stewart: do you need to dynamically compute the path?
          Chris: Protection is computed ahead of time
          Stewart: it conflicts with the SPRING principle of intermediate nodes
          not knowing the state.
          Chris: you have to violate somewhat for the second label
          o Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
          Faisal                8 minutes                14:35
          Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=5020
          no questions
          o Segment routing for SD-WAN paths over hybrid networks
          Linda Dunbar                6 minutes        14:43
          Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=5240
          Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=5913
          Jeff Tantsura: there is management element in there. need to talk to
          Ignas to see which WG needs to be discussed
          [Insufficient time for Robin's question - to the list]
          o SR For SDWAN: VPN with Underlay SLA
          Darren Dukes                6 minutes                14:49
          Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=5948
          Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=6200
          Darren: Will discuss with Linda on how to integrate the two drafts on
          SD-WAN tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday at 3:30pm at IETF registration)
          Daniel (Bell Canada): some similarities with the previous draft, I guess
          you will need to collaborate both draft together.
          Darren: Absolutely.
          o Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing
          Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
          Zafar Ali                10 minutes                14:55
          Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=6256
          Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=6735
          Jabbar (Greg): purpose and how to use the time-stamp.
          Zafar: timestamp is implementation dependent; as soon as possible on
          the ingress line card.
          Ron Bonica: (SRv6 Overlay Traceroute slide) This page includes other
          routing header types. It might be useful to make it generatic by moving
          the O-bit out of the SRH to a destination option.
          A: easier to get the flag from the same header; behavior specific to
          the SR SID.
          o Segment Routing Traffic Accounting Counters
          Zafar Ali                10 minutes                15:05
          Lack of time for this presentation
          Please summarize the 2 slides on the mailing list
          Zafar: We like to ask for WG adoption
          Bruno: ok, request can be also be part of the email
          o Performance Measurement in Segment Routing Networks
           SR-MPLS:  draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm-01
           SRv6:     draft-ali-spring-srv6-pm-02
           UDP Path for In-band Performance Measurement
          Rakesh Gandhi / Zafar Ali                10 minutes                15:15
          Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=7027
          No time for questions.
          Speaker Shuffling Time                5 minutes
          Total                120 minutes                15:30

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