Subject: Philadelphia meeting minutes

From: Rick Wilder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:53:59 -0700 (PDT)

Many thanks from the WG to Cengiz Alaettinoglu and Andrew Lee for taking notes at this meeting!

Unless there are any corrections or additions, I will submit the following as the official
minutes.

Rick Wilder

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L3VPN WG Meeting Minutes - Philadelphia
March 10, 2008

Chairs:  Ron Bonica / Rick Wilder

Scribes: Cengiz Alaettinoglu and Andrew Lee,
no Jabber scribe was available.

WG Status

Most of the WG work items have been completed except for a few on
Multicast VPNs. Particularly, no work item is in the RFC editor queue. There are some new
proposals for which the charter does not need to be updated.

T. Morin - draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-02

Thomas presented changes to his draft which is now one year old and
asked for the next version (-03) of the draft to be considered for WG
adoption. Changes were mostly of clarification nature. Eric has provided some feedback few days
ago and the authors didn't have time to address them yet.

This was followed by a non-technical discussion between Eric Rosen and Thomas and few others
whether this document is the right approach at all. Eric doesn’t believe the document is doing a
balanced comparison of options and believes a new document is needed. The authors still want a
core set of mandatory procedures to be defined to support multi-vendor networks. Thomas agreed to
incorporate some of Eric’s comments, but said the authors did not agree with all.

Ron questioned whether the number of options in multicast-VPN could be reduced just by having a
meeting and coming to consensus. Eric stated that agreeing to disagree makes many options, but if
we want to make progress we will have to agree to disagree. The possibility of defining a small
number of profiles was suggested as one way to deal with disagreement. There was also a suggestion
to just document which combinations of options are not compatible. Yakov Rekhter stated that no
IETF documents define profiles.

Attempts to advance the discussion of the recently raised technical issues did not go far at this
meeting, so must be resolved with discussion on the mail list and document updates by the authors.
Ron advised to focus on the parts of VPN multicast where we can reach consensus. 

M. Napiera - draft-mnapierala-mvpn-part-reqt-01

Maria presented second version of her mVPN partitioning requirements
Document. The main requirements are to support anycast sourcing inMVPNs where packet duplication
both at the customer networks and in service provider network are avoided. Additionally, the
solution should not restrict the multicast tree in anyway such as requiring RPs to be in SP
network, or deploying MSDP, forcing customers to switch to source trees. Supporting PIM Bidir with
source only branches was also a requirement. There were no comments from the WG.

M. Napiera - draft-mnapierala-mvpn-rev-04.txt

Maria presented changes to her draft. The changes included both new work and clarifications. The
new work includes PIM-SM inter-PE procedures, S-PMSI aggregation and source-specific host reports
in PIM-SM. She then proceeded with highlights and summary of its operation.

She is not sure what to do with the document next as she is not a
developer she cant do much more with the document.

B. Davie - davie-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-02

Bruce presented changes to his draft on supporting customer RSVP
sessions over an L3VPN cloud. The work now only focuses on admission
control aspects of RSVP, not TE aspects. The customer RSVP messages are
tunneled over the provider backbone.

The main change was the introduction of VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 VPN address families in RSVP session
objects. This enables removing vrf-id and vpn-label objects, supports option B of inter-as L3VPNs,
and cleans up RSVP session object semantics. The document is close to completion.

Since the proposal changes RSVP, the work will be done in the TSV WG.
For this, TSVWG wants a statement from the L3VPNs WG that they support the proposal. Lars Eggert
requested a WG consensus from the room as TSVWG would not want to do the work and then have L3VPN
WG change to a different solution for CAC. There was a clear consensus in the room to support the
solution and provide the required nod to the TSV WG.

Ron asked Kenji if Bruce's work meets the requirements Kenji has
compiled. Bruce and Kenji agreed that it meets the requirements on the
admission control aspect, though the Kumaki document also covers TE aspects.

Yakov mentioned that with this work plus the GMPLS UNI RFC (which covers RSVP between CE and PE),
the TE requirements may not be too hard to achieve. Bruce favored to move this document forward
instead of slowing it down for TE. Bruce did agree to provide the author’s analysis of what is
needed for TE, however.

K. Kumaki - draft-kumaki-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-06

Kenji presented his requirements document on Customer RSVP sessions over L3VPNs. It covers both
admission control and TE aspects to provide end-to-end QoS. It is intended to support delivery of
triple play services. 

He lists 21 requirements in his draft and went over few of them; the main ones being to avoid
scalability issues in the SP networks, and forwarding native IP packets or labeled IP packets
between CEs. He said that his document is ready for WG adoption.

There was a discussion mostly between Yakov and Kenji on what scalability meant in this context.
That is whether it means just the P routers do not maintain state about customer RSVP sessions or
PE routers as well do not maintain such state. This issue will be clarified in the mailing list.

It looked like some more work is needed and there was not a clear
consensus in the room about adopting the document. Ron will bring the
issue to the mailing list.