IETF 61 : CCAMP Minutes

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

Please find attached the minutes from the CCAMP meeting at IETF 61.
Please let us know if there any questions.

Regards,
Adrian

61st IETF CCAMP Minutes
11/11/2004
Minutes taken by
Lyndon Ong, Deborah Brungard, Dimitri Papadimitriou


1. Admin and agenda bash - Chairs (5 min)
Agenda bashing - no changes

2. Status of WG drafts - Adrian (10 min)

Drafts now unblocked, however the removal of the MPLS bundling draft has
caused another snag.
We have got two new RFCs, Architecture (3945) and SONET/SDH Extensions
(3946).
Six drafts are in the RFC Ed. queue.
Five are in IETF Last Call.
Two are in IESG review.
15 active drafts - if you want a draft adopted as WG draft, let's finish
these first!
Tunnel trace in particular seems to have very little interest - will be
discussed wrt to rechartering.

Overall status: almost all milestones completed, should recharter or
close in March '04!

Lou - slide does not list all 15 drafts - others are still active? In
particular Alarm_Spec
Adrian - no intention to exclude, asked if implementation on alarm
spec draft.
Lou - at least one, possibly two,
Kireeti - only need one, so Ok to go forward

Adrian - Note: Node_Id based Hello has not been updated before deadline
Adrian - Milestones and re-chartering will be covered at the end of the
meeting.
Dimitri Papadimitriou - Correction. Node_Id based hello was submitted in
time. Updates for WG last call comments.


3. Link Bundling - Zafar Ali
 -- Issues with current RFCs and drafts
 -- Draft removed from the RFC editor's queue
 -- Issues with scooping type 4/5 TLVs for IF_ID_RSVP_HOP and
    IF_ID_ERROR_SPEC, also recording of route
 -- Plan to address first two issues in an updated draft but component
    link recording will remain outside the scope of the bundling draft.
    Will allow but recommend against use of types 4/5.
 -- Work on recording/explicit control will be done in a separate ID.
    Home in MPLS or CCAMP?

 -> see slides

 -- Plans
    Pulled from queue (reviewed slides)

Adrian: procedure -> MPLS WG own document. Do review on what happens in
this WG
Note: speed is really important as we have multiple blocking documents
in the CCAMP WG queue.

Kireeti: This is not free for all on the bundling draft - change to be
proposed and to be sent on the list (delta only)

George: as MPLS chair, MPLS group plans to do updates quickly -
considered as last call comments


4. ASON Signaling Solutions - Dimitri P (5min)
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-02.txt>

<http://www.olddog.co.uk/
draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-00.txt>

 -- ASON signaling - no updates but lots of thinking esp. call setup
    message naming (Notify vs. specialized message), desire not to
    "piggyback" call information in the connection message.  Expect
    finalized draft around Christmas time.
 -- ASON routing solutions design team
    - Evaluation of common "pattern" has taken time, evaluation document
      should be issued by end- November.
    - Model shown - use of terminology - what is TE Router ID, what is
      OSPF Router ID?
    - Further considerations - control plane does not transport the
      actual transport plane ids, but its view of the transport plane,
      using an associated IP addressing space.
    - No internal structure is associated with an abstract node.
    - Hierarchy focus is on exchange of information between peers.
    - Representation of bandwidth needs further thought.
Adrian: it seems the DT has been making good progress, CCAMP WG has
unfortunately not been aware of the progress, progress must be shown to
the group by either sending status or updating the draft.
Dimitri: will mail to the list.
Zafar Ali: how does this work relate to the OSPF and ISIS groups?
Dimitri: we are evaluating what may be missing, after this evaluation we
can address protocol-specific issues.
Zafar: Are you looking at existing mechanisms?
Dimitri: global applicability is next step, currently looking at what
info is exchanged


5. ITU Liaison - Lyndon Ong

 -- ITU continues to be interested in converging the work on signaling
    and routing
 -- ITU thanks CCAMP for its liaisons, and esp. Adrian for attending the
    last Q14 meeting
 -- ITU is currently working on ASON management specifications and
    thanks CCAMP for its liaison of the GMPLS MIB work for its review
Zafar: can we also have a report of OIF status?
Chairs and Lyndon: there is nothing formal to report at this time that's
why it was not scheduled on the agenda.  However, liaisons will be sent
to the mailing list for everyone's review, and if something formal is
made available, it will be scheduled.
Lyndon: - there is ongoing discussion and communication just sent back
to IETF
Adrian: but not there yet (not available)
Lyndon: is there a need for a permanent liaison from the OIF at the
CCAMP meeting?
Adrian: if there is something to be discussed it will be considered on a
per-request/per-case basis

6. Graceful Shutdown - Zafar Ali (10 min)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt

 -- Intention is to support a planned shutdown, e.g., for maintenance
    purposes
 -- IGP based solution does not cover Inter-AS/Area scenarios
 -- RSVP-based solution does not convey information to all nodes in the
    network.
 -- Both mechanisms must complement each other
 -- Use existing sub-code of the Path Error message, then perform
    make-before-break for the LSP. Proposed changes are minor and based
    on existing framework.
 -- Would like to propose this ID as a WG document
Rahul: is this intra or inter?  inter-domain can use hierarchy of LSPs
(nesting/stitching) to achieve this isolation.
Zafar: recognize both mechanisms
Rahul: we should clarify these aspects, as well as inter-domain TE
aspects.
Zafar: can add these aspects in the document
Richard Rabbat: why is this GMPLS rather than MPLS?
Zafar: could be shutting down any type of link.
Adrian: in terms of problem space it is needed in both cases
Igor Bryskin: this is a data plane problem followed by rerouting - why
don't we use existing mechanisms such as propagating alarms?
Zafar: distinguish this from alarms as this is not something that
requires an immediate reroute. This is not intended to tackle data plane
alarms
Kireeti: maintenance of the link/node - out-of-service issue is to get
traffic out of the link
Igor: alarms do not only mean "failure". Could it use alarm severity?
Kireeti: not an alarm situation.
Adrian: this is maintenance alarm => requires to scope the work
Igor: Tools already exist to trigger the same thing, the existing tools
are more powerful than this proposed one
Zafar: point to the capability of the mechanism having the indication to
perform make-before-break - also suggest put on the list what you think
are alternative mechanisms
Lou Berger: if we do this, we should use existing mechanisms such as
admin status or alarm (Arthi's suggested one, Igor's alarm admin status)
Zafar: this mechanism is already in the spec - JP's re-optimization
draft
Lou: other mechanisms are in RFCs. We should decide on mechanisms before
we accept as a WG draft.
Kireeti: step back from the solution, so the point is to write down what
is to be achieved (take things out gracefully) -> need first to look at
requirements for what want to do.
Zafar: agreement

7. Interdomain Framework - Adrian (5min)
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
  draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-00.txt>
 -- Minor changes since last time, but published as WG draft
 -- Applies to both MPLS and GMPLS, but currently limited to simpler
    functions for initial work
 -- Realize need more discussion on definition of "domain" e.g. Nested
    domains, ensure GMPLS included. Will take to list for discussion.
 -- This covers "simple" functions, what about "advanced" functions such
    as diverse paths, mapping domain-specific constraints such as
    DiffServ, pt-to-mpt, etc.?
 -- Adrian's suggestion is to keep this separate for convenience.
Rahul: MPLS OAM - building blocks are in place, so it can go in this
document; P2MP is considerably less well understood.
Kireeti: what about GMPLS OAM?
Dimitri: need to understand what we mean by GMPLS OAM. Suggest phased
approach.

8. Interdomain TE Requirements - Tomohiro Otani (5min)
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-otani-ccamp-interas-gmpls-te-01.txt>

 -- Joint proposal from NTT/KDDI, can be used for L1VPN, MPLS-TE
 -- Changes:  added section identifying the following general
    requirements
    - EGP extensions for GMPLS
    - GMPLS Inter-AS signaling, path calculation and recovery
    - GMPLS interdomain TE management
 -- Remaining issues:
    - Investigate added load created by EGP extensions
    - Investigate L1VPN, use of SRLG for consistency, rechartering
      impacts
    - Propose WG document
Zafar: recommended would be a good basis for inter-domain TE framework
Arthi: support effort, but has too many solutions-related aspects in it.
Also suggest separating requirements into signaling, routing and path
computation. Need to clarify what is meant by domain - refer to
framework document.
Dimitri: what about reachability information exchange?  Not addressed,
but will be an important aspect.
Adrian: this is solution, not requirements. Suggest to separate
requirements and solutions. General approval of the work, but need to
remove solutions. Should consider reachability as well as TE aspects.
Restructure as Arthi suggests.
Otani: agree, will separate
Kireeti summarizing: separate requirements from solution and structure:
signaling from routing (in part. reachability)

9. Summarize Status and plans of PCE BOF (JP Vasseur) (5 minutes)
 -- Scope issues
    - No intent to come up with new interdomain routing paradigm
    - Scoped applicability to a limited number of TE LSPs
    - Scoped to a "simple" topology of ASes or areas
 -- Previous BOF - clear requirements from many SPs and common theme of
    problem - MPLS TE LSP path computation
 -- Architecture - comments noted global picture needed, but no
    standardization of architecture.  New revision to be submitted soon
    in the meantime please comments!
 -- Note agreed no intention to extend LDP, but possibly other protocols
 -- Agreed on proposed charter and milestones, proposal to be sent out
    early next week.
 -- Many in favor of new WG, none against - need IESG review and work on
    charter
Bijan Jabbari: what scale of LSPs?
JP: no specific number, not full mesh - does this mean no scalability
concerns?
Adrian: need to make the problem manageable, at least initially.
Bijan: will WG be open to new architectures?
Kireeti: take this to the list.
Peter Toms: support this, lots of requests for this.

10. Inter-Domain RSVP-TE extensions - Arthi Ayyangar (5min)
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-00.txt>
 -- Changes - include separate section on stitching and required
    extensions, clarifications for non-packet LSPs.
 -- Request to make it a WG document - none against, but limited number
    agreeing (note: not many read the draft)- list.
Adrian: stitching has wider applicability - should we pull it out into a
separate draft?

11. Diverse Inter-region Setup - D'Achille - presented by Adrian (5 min)
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-04.txt>

 -- Adrian not that familiar with this draft. Flags one slide on message
    exchange where the head end is in the center rather than at the end.
    Notes several claim, explicitly claim of no new protocol seems
    questionable as new objects are defined. Need further feedback.
 -- Can't take questions as no authors present to discuss - take to list

12. Related to 11.  Protection for Inter-AS tunnels - Decnodder - Cristel
Pelsser
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-decnodder-ccamp-interas-protection-00.txt>
 -- Differs from 11
 -- Addresses requirements from TEWG draft
 -- Uses RSVP-TE and FRR
 -- Adds clarifications on SRLG scope, assumed to correspond to a single
    AS
 -- Looking for feedback, how to generalize to GMPLS
Adrian: need to apply to GMPLS if you want the draft to be in this group
Zafar: SRLG issue - need to solve the scooping issue, applies in a
number of places.
Adrian: WG should look at a framework for diverse paths, including PCE
Zafar: needs more discussion to understand, and already work in MPLS WG
on ABR protection.
Adrian: authors can continue draft, would also like for CCAMP to
evaluate if PCE is appropriate, or something else
JP: should include the PCE mailing list on this.
Adrian: need discussion on the ccamp list.

13. Requirements for multi-region - Kohei Shiomoto
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-requirements-00.txt>

 -- Region defined based on switching capability - note region is
    control plane, layer is data plane
 -- Addresses pre-provisioned FA, triggered FA and no FA cases.  Plain
    and hybrid type nodes.
 -- Architecture has generated requirements and solutions drafts
 -- Virtual network topology, application example
 -- Propose as WG document.
Adrian: handling regions are in scope of CCAMP.
Adrian: asks Dimitri to immediately present the extensions then we will
take questions

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-00.txt>
Dimitri Papadimitriou

 -- TE metric inheritance - how to inherit or map metrics
 -- How is recovery abstracted for an FA - e.g., end2end vs. span
    protected?
 -- Reconvergence of VNT
 -- Handling multiple switching and adaptation capabilities
Zafar: is this a good idea from TE point of view - dynamic FA creation -
need applicability statement - potential bandwidth segmentation issues -
may lose aggregation that you would normally get at the boundary - could
add oscillation.  If still considered a good idea, should it be
triggered by signaling or some other mechanism?  Document needs to list
concerns.
Arthi: some parts of requirements still not clear - what is needed
outside of the LSP hierarchy draft?  Need to clarify what is missing
from the existing, and reference where it's covered by existing
documents.  Don't want to reinvent terminology.  Regarding virtual FA
setup can be pre-provisioned or on demand - hierarchy draft already says
this, should not be in the requirements document but only in the
solutions document. Regarding protection - more work needs to be done in
the requirements.
Igor: region, layer, hierarchy level are treated interchangeably in the
draft, confusing.  Regarding stitching, this is a very general
capability and should be in LSP hierarchy instead.
Kireeti: thinks this should have a separate document.
Adrian: more clarification would be good on layer/region
Jonathan Sadler: good stuff in general, agree with the goal.  Concern is
that IETF framework is not well aligned to ITU concept of layered
network (G.805).  It would be good to take into account the ITU
framework.  Work on extensions is premature at this time.
Deborah Brungard: authors intended to handle multiple layers as in ITU
(e.g. G.805) - limited to single domain for now, should be addressed to
GMPLS RFCs. Not intended to discuss data plane concepts. Request for
more specific comments.


14. MPLS-to-GMPLS Migration - Kohei Shiomoto
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-04.txt>

 -- Evolution from legacy MPLS to GMPLS -
 -- Differences: architecture (C/D separation, bidirectionality, P&R);
    routing (opaque LSA); signaling (new objects, messages)
 -- Propose WG document
Kireeti: question on whether this is in scope - address on charter
Zafar: multi-layer comments also apply here.
Richard Rabbat: supports the work, suggests looking at more generic
numbers of regions (not just 2 or 3).
Ping Pan: how does this differ from the overlay model?
Kireeti: different, take this to the list.

15. L1 VPN - Tomonori Takeda (10 Min)
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
  draft-takeda-l1vpn-framework-02.txt>
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 draft-takeda-l1vpn-applicability-01.txt>
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 draft-ouldbrahim-ppvpn-gvpn-bgpgmpls-05.txt>
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-05.txt>

 -- Mailing list - www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
 -- Two drafts applicable, ouldbrahim and overlay - guidelines for
    enhancement, deployment scenaros - added terminology refinement,
    security considerations, service models
 -- Further comments solicited, planning further liaison to SG13.
 -- Applicability draft examines existing GMPLS protocols for L1 VPN
    services. Has added Deborah as co-author.
 -- Concept - set up FA LSP between PEs, use stitching to connect this
    to CEs.
 -- Propose to adopt as CCAMP charter item.
Kireeti: supports applicability draft.  Liaison with ITU is very
important - we need to be responsive.  We will discuss this item as part
of the extension of the CCAMP charter

16. Signaling for L2 LSPs - Dimitri Papadimitriou (10 minutes)
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-l2sc-lsp-03.txt>

 -- ATM, FR, ETH, etc.  Defines label request processing, label
    semantics, added security section.
 -- Security - threats analysis, attacks on the data plane, L2 LSP
    signaling, attacks on control plane
 -- Ask for WG draft, no plan to respin
Dave Allan: Question on Ethernet VLAN tag swapping - not defined in
IEEE.
Dimitri: intended to cover GMPLS scope, not data plane.  Should not
assume tag is per port unique.
Don Fedyk: is this P2P?
Dimitri: Yes (as starting point).
Kireeti: ok, we have a fair consensus, so I would say it's a rough
consensus point. We will take this to the list, Dave and Dimitri to
work out VLAN issue.
Adrian: Note that an MPLS group draft on L2 has come up

17. Mesh Carrier Survey - Richard Rabbat (5 min)
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01.txt>

 -- Initially 7 carriers polled, open to others
 -- Also surveys GMPLS control plane deployment
 -- 1 has deployed, 3 within 2-3 years, 3 with no current plans
 -- Concerns with stability, signaling storms
 -- Asking for feedback, new carrier input
Richard: review slides, recommend for CCAMP WG to begin work on shared
mesh restoration performance

18. Milestone and Charter discussion - Kireeti

 -- Current activities winding down, esp. P&R, ASON
 -- Others underway, esp. multi-domain
 -- New: migration, VPNs, control plane resilience, addressing,
    implementation experience, GTTP (?)
 -- Migration
    - GMPLS supersets MPLS, but some objects are different - label
      request, label, upstream label
    - Need BCP on smooth migration, what issues may occur
 -- L1 VPN
    - Should IETF do this?  Should it be in CCAMP?  Tied to UNI and
      Interdomain signaling
 -- Control plane resilience - includes graceful restart but also more
 -- Addressing - transport networks use different kinds of addresses
    - need decoder ring for mapping transport network address types to
      IP addresses
    - Kireeti considers this useful
 -- Interop results
    - note that addressing pops up there as well.  BCPs would be helpful
 -- Send out request for new work items, replies due Friday 11/19.
 -- Send out checks for consensus on each item, replies due Friday 12/3
 -- Send resulting list to A-Ds, trimmed if necessary, add appropriate
    milestones
 -- Consensus is a requirement but not a guarantee.
Lou: how about dropping something from the existing charter
Kireeti: maybe GTTP
Lou: should note on the list also things that may be dropped if no
support
Alex Zinin: about L1 VPNs - is this research work, or practical?  Need
at least one implementation - is anyone implementing this within a year
or two?
Dimitri: Solutions exist provided by vendors today, but no common
framework.  Timeframe for implementation is 18-24 months.
Alex: remind the group of the need for running code.
Adrian: what about informational draft on how to use existing functions
to do the service?  Is there any interest from the research groups or
the real carrier deployment groups?
Tomonori Takeda: NTT has interest, but not sure of protocols.  Timeframe
cannot say.  Testing is done.
Yakov Rekhter: vendors cannot disclose future product plans...
Deborah Brungard: carriers also cannot disclose plans, will see interest
by number of co-authors.
Kireeti: have had carriers ask for this technology.  We don't have all
the pieces, but have implemented many of them, and as a vendor would
like to see a solution on how to do. Answer to Alex is yes.
Richard Rabbat: could add this to his survey.
Kireeti: supports this.

MEETING IS ADJOURNED.