[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
CCAMP WG Minutes - 59th IETF Seoul
Common Control and Measurement Plane WG
(ccamp)
THURSDAY, March 4 at
0900-1130
===============================
===
Group Admin
---
Chairs
Admin - Nothing much to say (in English
anyway)
- In Korean, however, the
following was said:
"Jigeumbuteo CCAMP meetingeul sijakhagesumnida".
Agenda bash (5 mins) - No
changes
Status of WG drafts and milestones
Adrian's slides showed that we do have some draft
congestion in the WG.
- RFC editor
queue
- status of IANA for
SONET/SDH
Kireeti talked about an issue with
SONET/SDH IANA
assignments
- need a means to get early
assignments.
There is WIP to accomplish this,
and it is moving
ahead.
- future allocation of "experimental" values
Liaisons
---
Marco Carugi talked about work
in SG-13 (SG13 liaison).
He covered topics, new study areas,
timescales, objectives
and status. They are also looking for people
interested in
doing work in these areas.
An L1 VPN questionnaire and framework
draft were attached
to the liaison.
Tomonori Takeda talked about the technical
issues and
details of the work.
Monique Morrow had a couple of
clarification for Marco -
When will the consent portion of the work be
done in the
ITU?
Marco said that the different
pieces of work were
progressing at different speeds. Some
material is
already embodied in recommendations. The next
SG13
meetings are in June and September.
Dimitri Papadimitriou asked if the draft
(l1vpn
framework) provided in the liaison could include a
summarization (as conclusion) on the expected GMPLS work
for the CCAMP
WG, this would clarify the intent of the
liaison in term of expected
effort for the CCAMP WG
Kireeti answered. If CCAMP's
rechartering this month
results in the addition of L1VPNs
to the charter, then
a Liaison response from the IETF will
include this
information, plus a request for a cooperative
effort,
preferably along the lines of the ASON routing
work,
wherein the ITU-T defines the requirements and the
IETF
does the protocol extensions.
Alex Zinin said that we will have to make
a decision at
some point as to whether or not we want to do this
work
here.
Kohei Shiomoto said that the protocol for
the L1VPN should
be developed at the IETF as long as it uses IP
protocol.
There are already internet-drafts on GVPN and CCAMP is
the
best place to discuss it.
Deborah Brungard said that there is work
and some synergy
and that we should continue to work on
this.
Monique Morrow agrees that we
should work on that.
Marco added some comments that
were not captured in the
minutes.
Malcolm Betts said he also
feels that we should do this.
Adrian took a quick poll and it seems as
if nobody is
against doing this work.
Kireeti reminded people to continue this
discussion on
the list.
---
Lyndon Ong talked about work in SG-15 (3
liaisons).
Liaisons were on ASON routing
requirements, response to
comments on Q14 for G.7713.2 and comments on
the CCAMP
ASON signaling requirements draft.
Lyndon spent much of the time on the
details of response
to comments on Q14. It seems that some of the
differences
in architectural models revolve around "end-to-end"
and
"call segment" operating models.
Kireeti asked for the reply by
date.
Lyndon did not have
that.
Steve Trowbridge said that the
meeting starts on April
19th
Dimitri had a question on the deadline.
There is a
deadline on G.7713 (April 2004), isn't there a
similar
deadline on G.7713.2 (since this is the document to
which
convergence is expected) ?
Lyndon said that he had not
gone into that. He gave a
reason, but this was not
captured in the minutes.
Deborah said that the liaison for 7713.2
does not say any
thing about convergence.
Lyndon said that they are
still looking for a "meeting
of the minds".
Deborah said that there is an issue with
G.7713.2 because
of compatibility.
Lyndon said that yes there has
been a lot of discussion
of compatibility questions and
requirements.
Kireeti said that we should not discuss
this here.
Steve Trowbridge added some comments that
were not
captured in the minutes.
Kireeti asked the WG to take this
discussion to the list
and try to keep that discussion on a productive
basis.
Adrian said that he wanted to recognize
the efforts of
the ITU folks in this work.
===
ASON Requirements and
Solutions
---
Dimitri Papadimitriou presented status of ASON
Signaling
Requirements
(draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-05.txt.
The requirements were driven by last
year's liaison from
the ITU.
The discussion slides proposed to defer to
the GROW WG
(cf. RIFT WG item) concerning the (external)
non-IP
reachability issue since much broader than just CCAMP
GMPLS/ASON context
After this meeting, Dimitri would like to
re-spin the
draft and have a two week last call.
Lyndon said he want to capture the
requirement on "non-IP
reachability" - whether or not we will work on
it here
Kireeti said that we first need to
understand importance
of this and then we can look to the ADs for
guidance on
handling this. He also said that we should take some
time
to work out what we want to say to the ITU when we
include
the current draft.
---
Dimitri Papadimitriou gave status ASON
Signaling Solutions
(draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt)
status.
He would like feedback on whether or not
the current draft
deals correctly with the session attribute object
that
encodes the long call_id (alternatives were also
proposed)
His objective at this point is to try to
have a document
ready for last call for the next IETF 60 meeting in
San
Diego
Lyndon suggested that we might remove the
comparison with
G.7713 from the draft.
Adrian asked if this meant
that the interworking draft
for RFC3473/4 interworking was
now obsolete.
Lyndon said maybe,
if interworking is removed as a
requirement.
---
Lou Berger talked about Egress Control
-
draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-01.txt -
Original egress label control became
explicit label
control. This draft attempts to capture the
original
intent.
He wants to know if the WG feels that this
is ready to
be a BCP and what the chairs think the next steps
should
be.
Lou re-iterated that the purpose and scope
of the draft
is for clarification. He does not see any value in
adding
to this intent or combining it with other work.
Adrian then took a poll and nobody
objected to take this
on as a WG item (more than a third were in
favor).
---
Lyndon Ong went over status on ASON
Routing Requirements
-
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-02.txt
He includes in his presentation the Design
Team's
conclusions as to what there is agreement about
what's
missing from GMPLS (delta), and what are the areas on
which there is no agreement about what's missing from
GMPLS.
Vishal Sharma asked if the three issues
(slide 6) were
already opened up for discussion on the list, or
would
they be formally opened up with the DT members
initiating
a discussion on these on the list?
Lyndon Ong replied that a
discussion had not been
formally opened up yet (although
people were free to
discuss/comment).
Kireeti asked
Lyndon to more formally open this
discussion
on the mailing list.
Vishal Sharma said that he supports
this.
Kireeti said he would like - after
checking with the AD -
that we should take this work to the IS-IS and
OSPF WGs.
Alex Zinin said this is a good
idea.
===
Tunnel Trace
---
Ron Bonica
presented status on draft-bonica-tunproto-05.txt
The solution is very similar to
Trace-Route but does not
require that each node in a tunnel supports
TTL decrement.
He gave a few examples as to how the idea
in the draft
will work in a few scenarios.
There are a couple of outstanding
issues:
- trace requires a route to tunnel head end
-
integration with LSP ping.
He would like to get the draft accepted as
a WG draft.
Yakov asked what SPs use today for tunnel
tracing.
Ron said that in some case
people can use ICMP for MPLS.
Yakov then asked if we could get a BCP on
what people are
doing.
Ron asked if he should
resubmit his earlier draft on
this.
Kireeti said that
we do not want to decide that now.
===
Protection and
Restoration
---
Dimitri Papadimitriou presented status on the work of
the
Protection and Restoration Team - specifically:
1)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-02.txt
2)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-01.txt
3)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-03.txt
4)
draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt
He gave estimates on the timing for each
of the above
drafts (estimated completion dates).
He outlined the changes to the e2e
signaling ID (draft 4,
above).
He encouraged the WG to really read the
documents and
comment.
Kireeti polled for consensus on the
following:
a) Analysis - last call? Some
support, no objection
b) Functional - last call? Some
support, no objection
c) Terminology - last call? Some
support, no objection
d) e2e Signaling - WG document? Some
support, no object
Kohei Shiomoto said that the e2e
Signaling draft does not
address the misconnection issues raised
in the mailing
list.
Dimitri answered that it
is addressed in 8.3 of the
draft.
Kohei said
that the misconnection issue does not
happen only in the P&R context but also in
more
general context and therefore
should be addressed
in more general
context as well.
Kireeti said that the question should be
continued
to the mailing
list.
People at the microphone were asked to
take their
questions to the list.
---
Lou Berger presented an overview of work
on Segment
Recovery -
draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-00.txt
He also talked about what still needs to
be done (next
steps), including more usage scenarios, more
explanatory
text and see if the WG will adopt this work.
Arthi Ayyangar asked if the association
object is required
even if we are only doing segment recovery (as
opposed to
e2e).
Arthi asked why couldn't we extend the
Detour Object to
achieve the same result. Kireeti asked her to take to
the
list.
Richard Rabbat asked if this draft raised
the same issues
as the e2e signaling draft in terms of
misconnection.
Kireeti replied that they did
not know if there were
misconnection
problems.
Richard asked that
the discussion about misconnections
be moved
to the mailing list in the interest of time.
Adrian polled for support of accepting
this as a WG draft.
There was moderate support and no
objection.
===
Inter-Area/AS
---
Arthi Ayyangar
talked about the status of the merged draft
on Inter-area/AS signaling
-
draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-area-as-te-00.txt
The draft currently represents a full
merge - work is
still required to strip out redundant and unneeded
text.
She said that the authors encourage people
to come forward
with their comments. She would also like to see
if there
is interest in this work becoming a WG document.
Vishal Sharma said that the work should
apply to general
path computation domains and GMPLS LSPs.
In
response to Arthi's question on Slide "Outstanding
Issues" (about
whether detailed description of various
path computation algorithms
should be part of this
document or separate document(s)), he supported
the
document being split into a framework document,
discussing
signaling, and another document(s), discussing the
path
computation mechanisms, since the latter do not need to
be
standardized.
In response to Slide "Outstanding Issues:
Size of the
document" and for clarity, he supported the splitting
of
the applicability statement into an independent
document.
Dimitri agreed on the subject of
separating the document.
In addition, he questioned about the
relevance of using
the LSP_Attributes to signal the signaling method
for the
intra-area/-AS provisioning of the LSP.
In
particular, he proposed to not include protocol
procedures within
examples/scenarios that makes the
document difficult to
read.
Arthi asked that Dimitri take
his specific comments to
the list.
Kireeti said that he agrees that the
document needs to be
split - one as a signaling and another
(informational) to
provide examples for path computation. He also said
that
we need a separate applicability document.
Vishal Sharma then said that
he would be happy to help
with these tasks.
---
Vishal Sharma talked about work on
Inter-area
path
protection
draft-dachille-inter-area-path-protection-00.txt
He provided a brief overview of how it
works, and showed
how it relates to other work in progress. He also
listed
the next steps.
He emphasized that this is really a
generic mechanism for
diverse path computation, and protection is
one
application of it, so the authors would respin with a
new
name and emphasis to reflect this."
Zafar Ali asked how this would work if
there is a failure
at the time during which the backup path is being
setup.
Vishal replied that the
solutions to this were, so far,
not discussed in the
draft, but that there are several
options.
He then outlined some of the
options. E.g. either
default in such a case to a
sequential computation, and
use XRO to exclude the
link/node where backup path setup
failed, and retry the
backup (and optimize both primary
and secondary later
using the techniques in the draft).
Or, set up the primary
and the backup again, using the
techniques described in
the draft.
Vishal said they would be
happy to add some discussion
in the document, and welcomed
feedback on the list.
Zafar asked how this work relates to
PCS/PCE work.
Vishal replied that it could
actually be made use of by
the PCS/PCE approach, and could
be viewed as
complementary.
Kireeti asked that further discussion be
taken to the
list.
Vishal said he welcomed further feedback
on the document.
Dimitri asked why, knowing that the
proposed approach
works as expected in the intra-domain case when
the
number of ABRs (where computation can be executed at
each
stage) does not increase, this approach is so focused
on
optimization (since it can't be achieved if this
condition is not met).
Vishal clarified that the
focus of the work is to
propose a generic mechanism to
facilitate diverse path
setup by communicating alternate
path info, with
optimization a desired goal (for reasons
explained in
the document).
Vishal added that given the
network model (where border
nodes are not assumed to have
visibility in areas other
than their own), the scheme was
not trying to be
globally optimal.
Vishal explained that in such
cases some selection needs
to be performed at each
stage.
Kireeti asked that further discussion on
this should be
taken to the list.
Also, he said that Dimitri had a good
point - we need to
define criteria on which any optimization is
based.
Kireeti concluded by saying that path
protection and
inter-area are both in the charter, but that this
document
could only be considered for a WG document after there
was
discussion about the document on the list.
===
Control Pane Resilience, Hello Protocol
and Graceful Restart
---
Young Hwa Kim gave a presentation on Requirements
for the
Resilience of Control Plane in GMPLS
-
draft-kim-ccamp-cpr-reqts-00.txt
He described the reasons why control plane
resilience is
needed.
Zafar asked how control plane resilience
is different from
anything else in IP.
Steve Trowbridge said that their is also
some work in this
area in the ITU and he would try to get this in as
a
liaison as soon as possible.
Kireeti said that this is an important
discussion and
there are a lot of things to do. Specific topics should
be
raised on the list when appropriate.
---
Lou Berger went over Extensions to GMPLS
RSVP Graceful
Restart
draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00
He emphasized that egress restart is
already covered in
RFC3473 and this work has no effect on that
functionality.
He gave a brief overview and listed open
issues.
Next steps include merging with other
restart drafts and
seeing if this work can become a WG
draft.
Arthi Ayyangar said that the text at the
beginning of the
draft seems to talk only about the recovery ERO,
although
using the RecoveryPath one can recover many objects
besides the ERO. So the text should be clarified to this
effect.
Lou asked if she would like to
contribute text.
There was a discussion on adjacent node
restart.
Arthi asked why adjacent node restart was
an issue being
addressed in RSVP-TE. She pointed out that before
this
becomes an issue to be solved in RSVP-TE, we would
first
need to check if adjacent node restart even works for
IGPs.
The chairs then asked for other discussion
to go to the
list.
---
Zafar Ali talked about Extensions to GMPLS
RSVP
Graceful
Restart
draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions-00.txt
Kireeti said that he appreciated the
honesty of the
authors in acknowledging other work.
Nurit Sprecher asked about the
relationship to FRR and
similar issues.
Adrian agreed that these were
important issues and had
been raised on the list in recent
days. He asked the
authors to make sure that they cover
the points in the
draft.
---
Zafar then covered modifications to Hello
procedures
1) draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-node-id-based-hello-00.txt
2)
draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-hello-gr-admin-00.txt
He wants to go forward with draft 1
above.
Adrian polled and there was some interest
and no strong
objection.
Kireeti said that this work cannot be
informational if
it has - or proposes - changes to a
standard.
Zafar also wants draft 2 to be a WG
document.
Kireeti said that we need to take this to
the list, but
Zafar also needs to socialize the work he is doing so
that
people may decide whether or not this is work we want
to
do.
===
Everything Else
---
Emmanuel Dotaro
gave status of Multi-region protection
-
draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-04.txt
He briefly covered changes since previous
versions.
He proposes that we may need to make
changes to the
charter to include all of this work. In particular
to
include in the charter the complete set of GMPLS
mechanisms for integrated control planes, and not only
multi-layer
recovery (as it stands today).
Adrian suggested that the authors need to
get more people
involved in this important work and revisit this
later.
---
Jean-Louis Le Roux - Advertizing TE
Capabilities in IGPs
draft-vasseur-ccamp-isis-te-caps-00.txt
He would like to have this accepted as a
WG document.
Adrian asked to hold off on this until
after the OSPF talk
below.
---
Seisho
Yasukawa
draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt
He would like to have this accepted as a
WG document.
Regarding both drafts, Kireeti is not sure
that this work
belongs in this WG. The decision is driven by
the
generality of its applicability. If we do take it on,
their
needs to be a functional specification (independent of
IGP)
as well.
He asked that further discussion be taken
to the list.
---
The Following presentations were postponed
as we ran out
of time. Adrian made a couple of brief comments as
follows:
---
Zafar Ali - Explicit Resource Control and
Tracking
draft-zamfir-explicit-resource-control-bundle-03.txt
This work concerns
identification of component links in
EROs and
RROs.
A small group is currently
examining other issues
concerning identification of
component links in all
aspects of GMPLS. A draft is
expected soon. Please mail
Adrian or the list, if you want
to be involved in this
work.
---
Lou Berger - Alarm
Reporting
draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-01.txt
This draft is stable and
complete in the view of the
authors.
A quick poll showed some
support for this being a WG
document, and no opposition.
This will be taken to the
list.