Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: WG Review: Recharter of Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:30:52 +0200

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
The IESG
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls) 

A modified charter has been submitted for the Multiprotocol Label
Switching working group in the in the Routing Area of the IETF.  The
IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The modified charter is
provided below for informational purposes only.  Please send your
comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) by Tuesday, July 8,
2008.

This is an update to the MPLS charter in order to cover the MPLS-TP
work.

Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)
---------------------------------------------------
Last Modified: 2008-06-13

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):

    George Swallow <[email-masked]> 
    Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> 

Routing Area Director(s):

    Ross Callon <[email-masked]> 
    David Ward <[email-masked]> 

Routing Area Advisor:

    Ross Callon <[email-masked]> 

Mailing Lists:

    General Discussion: [email-masked]
    To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
    Archive:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group:

The MPLS working group is responsible for standardizing a base
technology for using label switching and for the implementation of
label-switched paths over various packet based link-level technologies,
such as Packet-over-Sonet, Frame Relay, ATM, and LAN technologies (e.g.
all forms of Ethernet, Token Ring, etc.).
This includes procedures and protocols for the distribution of labels
between routers and encapsulation.

The working group is also responsible for specifying the necessary
management objects (e.g. as part of MIB modules) and OAM techniques for
the functionality specified in the base MPLS technology.

The first generation of the MPLS standards are largely complete, and the
current WG work items are:

 - Define requirements, mechanisms and protocol extensions for
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS

 - Define requirements, mechanisms and protocol extensions for traffic
engineered point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS, including soft preemption

 - Define requirements and mechanisms for MPLS OAM

 - Define an overall OAM framework for MPLS applications

 - MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for multi-areas/multi-AS
in cooperation with the CCAMP WG

 - Determine (with CCAMP) what procedures are appropriate for evaluating
proposals to extend the MPLS and GMPLS protocols, and document these

 - Document current implementation practices for MPLS load sharing

 - Include extensions to the MPLS WG protocols and RFCs necessary to
create an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS TP). The work on the MPLS TP will
be coordinated between the working groups (eg, MPLS, CCAMP, PWE3, and
L2PVN) that are chartered to do MPLS TP work.

The Working Group chairs tracking of the working group documents can be
viewed at http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/mpls-wg-docs.htm

Goals and Milestones:

Done  Submit documents from original MPLS effort to IESG 

Done  Framework for IP multicast over label-switched paths ready for
advancement. 

Done  LDP fault tolerance specification ready for advancement to
Proposed Standard. 

Done  Submit Definitions of Managed Objects for MultoiProtocol Label
Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) to the IESG for publication
as Proposed Standards 

Done  Specification for MPLS-specific recovery ready for advancement. 

Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forward Equivalency
Class-To-Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry Management Information Base to
the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards 

Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router
(LSR), Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as
Proposed Standards 

Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview to
the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards 

Done  Submit Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Management to the IESG for publication as Proposed
Standards 

Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as Proposed
Standards 

Done  Submit the Traffic Engineering Link MIB to the IESG for as a
Proposed Standard 

Done  Submit a specification on Encapsulations to carry MPLS over IP and
GRE to the IESG for as a Proposed Standard 

Done  Submit specification on LSP Ping to the IESG for publication as a
Proposed Standard 

Done  Submit a document defining the scope, requirements, and issues to
resolve for setup of P2MP TE LSPs (MPLS and GMPLS) 

Done  Submit an OAM Framework Document to the IESG for publication as an
Informational RFC 

Done  Submit a BCP on MPLS load sharing to the IESG 

Done  Submit specification on LSR Self Test to the IESG for publication
as a Proposed Standard 

Done  Submit document(s) specifying protocol extensions, enhancements
and mechanisms for setup of P2MP TE LSPs 

Done  Submit point to multipoint TE MIB to IESG as proposed standard

Jun 2009  Submit requirements for point-to-multipoint extensions to LDP 

Jan 2009  Submit LDP extensions for P2MP LSPs 

Dec 2008  Submit a specification on Soft Pre-emption of LSP Tunnels to
the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard 

Mar 2009  Submit MPLS security framework for publication as an
informational RFC 

Nov 2008  Submit EXP field clarification document to IESG as proposed
standard

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:47:08 -0400

Folks,

Has anyone else had problems with the current MPLS MIBs? A while back I 
tried to implement RFC 3814 and was underwhelmed.

Maybe we should ask the WG to revisit their MIBs.

                                    Ron
                                    /as individual contributor

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:22:38 +0200

Can you spell a little bit 'underwhelmed'? 

Dan

> From: Ron Bonica [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:47 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] FW: WG Review: Recharter of 
> Has anyone else had problems with the current MPLS MIBs? A 
> while back I tried to implement RFC 3814 and was underwhelmed.
> 
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of The IESG
> > label-switched paths over various packet based link-level 
> > technologies, such as Packet-over-Sonet, Frame Relay, ATM, 
> and LAN technologies (e.g.
> > management objects (e.g. as part of MIB modules) and OAM techniques 
> > for the functionality specified in the base MPLS technology.
> > 
> > The first generation of the MPLS standards are largely 
> complete, and 
> > the current WG work items are:
> > 
> >  - MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for 
> > multi-areas/multi-AS in cooperation with the CCAMP WG
> > 
> >  - Determine (with CCAMP) what procedures are appropriate for 
> > evaluating proposals to extend the MPLS and GMPLS protocols, and 
> > document these
> > 
> > create an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS TP). The work on the MPLS TP 
> > will be coordinated between the working groups (eg, MPLS, 
> CCAMP, PWE3, 
> > and
> > The Working Group chairs tracking of the working group 
> documents can 
> > be viewed at http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/mpls-wg-docs.htm
> > 
> > Goals and Milestones:
> > 
> > Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) to the IESG for 
> > publication as Proposed Standards
> > 
> > Class-To-Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry Management 
> Information Base 
> > to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards
> > 
> > Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching 
> > Router (LSR), Management Information Base to the IESG for 
> publication 
> > as Proposed Standards
> > 
> > Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 
> Management Overview 
> > to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards
> > 
> > Done  Submit Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol 
> > Label Switching (MPLS) Management to the IESG for publication as 
> > Proposed Standards
> > 
> > Done  Submit a specification on Encapsulations to carry 
> MPLS over IP 
> > and GRE to the IESG for as a Proposed Standard
> > 
> > Done  Submit specification on LSP Ping to the IESG for 
> publication as 
> > a Proposed Standard
> > 
> > Done  Submit a document defining the scope, requirements, 
> and issues 
> > to resolve for setup of P2MP TE LSPs (MPLS and GMPLS)
> > 
> > Done  Submit an OAM Framework Document to the IESG for 
> publication as 
> > an Informational RFC
> > 
> > Done  Submit specification on LSR Self Test to the IESG for 
> > publication as a Proposed Standard
> >

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:15:29 +0100

Hi Ron,

I have implemented several of the MIB modules (3812, 3813) several times and 
also the GMPLS extensions.

I am not sure whether you are tarring all the MPLS MIB modules with the 3814 
brush. Perhaps we can get wider feedback.

But surely asking the MPLS WG to revisit the MIBs will not necessarily get 
anything done. But, if someone who had just found implementing them a pain 
was to produce a bis, I'm sure the WG would consider it.

Cheers,

Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Bonica" <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] [OPS-DIR] FW: WG Review: Recharter of Multiprotocol 
Label Switching (mpls)

>> Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls) A 
>> modified charter has been submitted for the Multiprotocol Label
>>     George Swallow <[email-masked]> Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> Routing 
>> Area Director(s):
>>
>>     Ross Callon <[email-masked]> David Ward <[email-masked]> 
>> Routing Area Advisor:
>>
>>     Ross Callon <[email-masked]> Mailing Lists:
>>
>> Done  Submit documents from original MPLS effort to IESG Done  Framework 
>> for IP multicast over label-switched paths ready for
>> advancement. Done  LDP fault tolerance specification ready for 
>> advancement to
>> Proposed Standard. Done  Submit Definitions of Managed Objects for 
>> MultoiProtocol Label
>> as Proposed Standards Done  Specification for MPLS-specific recovery 
>> ready for advancement. Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 
>> Forward Equivalency
>> the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards Done  Submit Multiprotocol 
>> Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router
>> Proposed Standards Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 
>> Management Overview to
>> the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards Done  Submit Definitions 
>> of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label
>> Standards Done  Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic 
>> Engineering
>> Standards Done  Submit the Traffic Engineering Link MIB to the IESG for 
>> as a
>> Proposed Standard Done  Submit a specification on Encapsulations to carry 
>> MPLS over IP and
>> GRE to the IESG for as a Proposed Standard Done  Submit specification on 
>> LSP Ping to the IESG for publication as a
>> Proposed Standard Done  Submit a document defining the scope, 
>> requirements, and issues to
>> resolve for setup of P2MP TE LSPs (MPLS and GMPLS) Done  Submit an OAM 
>> Framework Document to the IESG for publication as an
>> Informational RFC Done  Submit a BCP on MPLS load sharing to the IESG 
>> as a Proposed Standard Done  Submit document(s) specifying protocol 
>> extensions, enhancements
>> and mechanisms for setup of P2MP TE LSPs Done  Submit point to multipoint 
>> TE MIB to IESG as proposed standard
>>
>> Jan 2009  Submit LDP extensions for P2MP LSPs Dec 2008  Submit a 
>> specification on Soft Pre-emption of LSP Tunnels to
>> the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard Mar 2009  Submit MPLS 
>> security framework for publication as an
>> informational RFC Nov 2008  Submit EXP field clarification document to 
>> IESG as proposed
>> standard
>>

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:21:46 -0400

Hi Dan,

Sure. RFC 3814 defines three tables. These are:

- mplsFTNPerfTable
- mplsFTNMapTable
- mplsFTNPerfTable

The mplsFTNPerfTable is useful, but poorly formed. Each table entry 
represents a forwarding equivalence class (FEC) and associates that FEC 
to an LSP. If it were indexed well, it would be indexed by some 
combination of fields that identify the FEC. Unfortunately, it is 
indexed by INDEX. So, I can't ask a question of the following form:

- over which LSP would a packet bound for 10.1.1.1 be routed

I have to ask questions like the following:

- show me the 142nd entry in the forwarding table (whatever that might be!)

Since I generally have no idea where the entry that I care about is 
located, I have to walk the entire table. Typically, it is huge.

The mplsFTNPerfTable has some other oddities. For example, rather than 
using the address/mask strategy that other MIBs use, they talk about the 
high and low members of an address range.

The mplsFTNMapTable maps mapping rules to particular interfaces. It is 
only interesting on boxes that maintain a separate routing table per 
interface.

The mplsFTNPerfTable maintains performance statistics per FEC/Interface. 
  I don't know of any forwarding platforms that maintain such statistics.

                                     Ron