Subject: IETF 63 L3VPN Minutes

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:21:12 -0400

Folks,

Thanks to Hamid, Spencer and Scott for taking minutes. If I hear no 
objections by Friday, I will post these minutes plus all slides that 
were presented.

                            Ron

===================================================================

Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (Internet Area)

Monday, August 1 at 16:30-18:00
==============================

Chairs:
Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Rick Wilder <[email-masked]>
Ron Bonica  <[email-masked]>

Agenda:

16:30-16:40 Document Status Review - Ross Callon

Ross presented the status review.

- Made good progress. Ross mentioned the new RFCs
   published.

- bgp/mpls vpn specification initially waiting for addressing
   the BGP extended communities within the idr wg. Recently it
   was approved to progress and bgp/mpls vpn can progress now.

- iesg evaluation for pe-pe gre or ip in bgp/mpls, revised text
   in wg last call.

- ospf for PE-CE protocol (revised in may) waiting for iesg.
- bgp auto-discovery revised given the feedback received, back
     to AD.

- Waiting for write-up:

     - Constrained VPN route distrib updated, waiting on chairs
     - BGP-MPLS IP VPN for IPv6 updated, recently provided to IESG.

- Revised id needed:

   Virtual Router Architecture and its associated applicability
   statement.  Comments sent to authors.

- Under AD evaluation:

   An architecture for PP CE-based VPNs using IPsec and associated
   AS needs review and update.

- Architecture for PE-PE IPSec tunnel for bgp/mpls ip vpns
   recently updated based on last call comments

- Current work:

    o Requirement for multicast
    o Multicast solution in bgp ip vpn
    o CE-CE member verification
    o l3vpn import export verification (no activity on the above 2 docs).
    o appl stat, framework
    o definition textual convention mib for bgp/mpls ip vpn.

Multicast VPN Requirements - Thomas Morin
   draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-01
=========================================

Thomas Morin presented the draft-id.

- A new update posted 2 weeks ago.
- in this presentation will go through the changes,
   the multicast vpn survey, and we talk about next work.
- On the changes 2 new sections in the draft have been added.
   o Carrier's carrier requirements and
   o New section on QoS (ability to offer different QoS level to
different customers.

- Updated sections: QoS (5.1.3) maintain join and leave delay
requirement
  (refer to RFC2432)and minimum MTU.
- Tunneling technologies need to mention P2MP LSP as much possible.
- Compatibility and migration issues solution should state
   a migration policy.
- Trouble shooting provide the operator with
   means LSP ping
- inter-as section (should provide inter-as mechanism requiring
least....
- Big changes on section 4 (Uses cases) illustrated deployment
   requirements.
- describe use cases scenarios
- provide order of magnitude for scalability requirement,
- waiting for survey.
- finally some edits changes...

- For multicast vpn survey (proposed at last ietf)
- survey overview (to be answered mainly by ISPs)
- focus on future expected deployments.
- typical questions Quantitative and qualitative (type of multicast
deployed, etc).
- Survey launched last week posted on different WG lists
   please answer it and send completed survey to Daniel King Dan
(dnni.com)
- answers expected by Sept 15 05.

Tom described the Next items for the draft such as:
  o complete section 4 with the help of the survey and
  o refine the requirements (PE-Ce protocols, inter-AS,
    carrier's carrier, extranet tunneling protocols, etc)

  o Address some open questions relevance of MTU-related sections.

- Conclusion: requirement is mostly mature except section 4.
Tom asked the audience to provide comments on the draft
on the mailing list and answer and disseminate the survey.

- Questions on the draft:  no questions.

Multicast VPN Solution -  Rahul Aggarwal
   draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-00
========================================

Rahul presented the draft:

  This is an update on multicast draft, this is Wg document.
  Rahul shows the co-authors/contributors,
  fully committed to move this work forward,

  This presentation for discussion open options.
  Reduce options if possible, outline the issues and
  specify required and optional procedures,
  looking at MVPN routing information exchange
   service provider technologies

- need to look at scalability of entire network.
   consider rate of churn C-joins/Prunes
   number of protocol sessions require frequent periodic
   changes

- how does it fit with 2547 operational model unicast

Rahul shows a table for MVPN routing exchange
not exhaustive list. Periodic refresh, session per PE UI-PMSI,. etc.
for BGP, PIM UNicast, PIM multicast...

- Do we really need PIM-SM with GRE?  Discovery can be done using
    BGP, shared trees can be built with PIM-SSM.

Conclusion

Goal to address these issues and produce 01 version.

Ross: is you proposal is to propose this options to
the WG list. Make Wg aware of the options:

- Ross Callon: is your proposal to ask these questions on the WG
   mailing list?

   Rahul: Yes. Want to capture these questions in the
   minutes.  Send email on the list and initiate the
   discussion.

-Question on BGP encoding to be published. They are already published
  encodings for BGP to carry MVPN information

  Rahul: Existing proposal may or may not be used.

- Question (person from Cisco):  Wants backward compatibility with what
has been
     deployed for years and the Rosen draft.

   Rahul: Certain options have been deployed, some not. Point well taken.

          Need WG input.

- Question: Deprecate PIM-SM?  Some providers already use
     it.
   Rahul: Point taken. OK.

- Question:  need periodic refreshment. There is are WG items that try
   to reduce periodic refreshes. Need to consider these approaches other
that may reduce the overhead.

- Albert, Redback: PIM needs periodic refresh?  There's some work in
   PIM WG to reduce periodic refreshes. Need to consider these
approaches.

   Rahul: Yes, need to look at pragmatic options, point taken.

- Question (from Cisco):  What is a service?  The only difference to the
     MVPN service is whether using SSM or ASM.  The protocol you use to
     implement it should be a separate issue.

   Rahul: draft should talk about applicability of protocols.
          Draft has told about tunneling technologies

   Yakov Rekhter: I disagree. Need to specify which protocol for
                  interoperability reasons.
   Toerless: same with IS-IS and OSPF.
   Yakov: yes.
   Toerless: what does rfc2547 say about IS-IS?
   Dan Alvarez: At least why do we think BGP is suitable.  For
   example there is no information on dynamic building of OSPF trees
   etc.

Comment (Person): this is the wrong level of detail. Why this need to be
                   specified.

Yakov: I disagree because of interoperability reasons need to specify
which protocol
        to use.

Question (Albert from Cisco): last comment: how well bgp is suitable for
multicast
   bgp is not used for intra multicast operation, why BGP is suitable.
   no information on dynamic multicast tree and how it related to
scalability.

   why use BGP as replacement for all existing multicast protocols...

Rahul: Not talking of building trees with BGP,
    just transporting with BGP. one item for consideration

Alcatel: The one thing for BGP helps is to provide a reliable transport.

Rahul: Note that BGP does have filtering mechanism...and is applicable
        in this case.

Ross: some of discussion can go to the text...

Multicast VPN MIB - Tom Nadeau
   draft-svaidya-mcast-vpn-mib-02
================================

Tom presented the draft.

Propose this document to manage rosen-multicast doc. interacts
well with MPLS MIBS.
draft need to use the combined approach will be published soon
after meeting.

- Ross: Have you got input?
- Tom: Yes. Will be published soon.
- Tom: Can we publish it directly as Wg doc.
- Ross: The MIB managed the combined draft. When the MIB will be
      updated to reflect combined drafts then we have two choices:
       either submit as individual contribution and request WG to
       ask for WGs, or just make it wg doc.

Ross: My personal option if the authors of both sides agree this is
the agreed way forward then I don't see objections to adopt it
as WG doc.

Ross: Does anybody has any objection to that?

No objection from audience...

Virtual Router Multicast Solution - Hong-Ke Zhang
   draft-zhang-l3vpn-vr-mcast-01.txt.
=================================================

Presenter: Spencer Dawkins. Spencer mentioned Zhang couldn't make the
            meeting.

There were some scalability questions on the mailing list such
as the number of trees in SP core will not exceed the number of
VRs, and does all multicast traffic in a VR share the same tree,
answer yes.

Does this approach require PIM-DM mode
answer no, next version will say this more clearly.

Questions:

- Ross: whose read the draft:

- Ross: few hand for those who read the document. Obvious question
out of 10 would that be any objection for those become WGs. Not quite
enough need to take it to the WG list and ask the question.

- Ross: if anybody is interested in deploying multicast for
vr please bring those to the mailing list.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:08:59 -0500

My apologies, because my meeting notes ran out while I was presenting :-)

I remember about three questions from the working group meeting at the 
end of my presentation on draft-zhang-l3vpn-vr-mcast-01.txt, and was 
hoping that the meeting minutes would contain them - I know one was a 
request that we explicitly reference specific requirements from the 
multicast requirements document - does anyone remember what the other 
two questions were?

Thanks!

Spencer

>   draft-zhang-l3vpn-vr-mcast-01.txt.
deleted down to

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:35:45 -0700

Ron,

 In many places below "Cisco" or "Alcatel" have been used instead of
 names. Can we please fix this?

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:32:44 -0400

Alex,

Sure thing.

All,

Please review the minutes. If you are "the person from Cisco" or "the 
person from Alcatel", please send me a private email so that I can 
include your name in the minutes.

                                      Ron