IETF
spring
spring@jabber.ietf.org
Wednesday, July 23, 2014< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[15:23:00] Hosnieh Rafiee joins the room
[16:04:32] Hosnieh Rafiee leaves the room
[16:49:13] Carlos Pignataro joins the room
[16:50:49] nordmark joins the room
[16:57:03] nordmark leaves the room
[16:57:09] Room Feed joins the room
[16:57:57] Kiran Makhijani joins the room
[16:58:00] Slide Feed joins the room
[16:58:43] dhruvdhody joins the room
[16:58:45] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[16:59:45] Kiran Makhijani leaves the room
[17:00:14] Dick Chen joins the room
[17:00:26] dennis cai joins the room
[17:00:30] Carlos Pignataro_5780 joins the room
[17:00:39] bpenfield joins the room
[17:00:55] Rob Shakir joins the room
[17:00:56] internetplumber joins the room
[17:01:07] Wes George joins the room
[17:01:30] <Rob Shakir> Hi - I'll jabber scribe, if you have a question please can you follow (Wes') protocol of prefixing with "mic:" please? :-)
[17:01:38] Kiran Makhijani joins the room
[17:01:47] <Rob Shakir> (a question/comment that I need to head to the mic for.)
[17:02:00] Paul Martinko joins the room
[17:02:11] <Rob Shakir> SPRING Chairs Admin & Agenda Bashing.
[17:02:42] <Rob Shakir> IPR disclosure.
[17:02:53] <Rob Shakir> Agenda.
[17:03:00] Giles Heron joins the room
[17:03:02] <Rob Shakir> Document statuses:
[17:03:07] Kira Makhijani joins the room
[17:03:14] Kiran Makhijani leaves the room
[17:03:17] <Rob Shakir> Adopted use cases - problem statement, IPv6 use cases and resiliency.
[17:03:24] <Rob Shakir> Aim to last call after the meeting.
[17:03:45] Christian Hopps joins the room
[17:03:46] Robert Raszuk joins the room
[17:04:21] <dennis cai> didn't hear the audio
[17:04:25] Simon Dredge joins the room
[17:04:38] <Rob Shakir> Skipping the Bits 'n' Bites presentation as John is in the room.
[17:04:41] <Rob Shakir> Dennis — it's quiet, or doesn't work?
[17:04:44] <Giles Heron> no audio either
[17:04:52] <Giles Heron> I think we need the rtsp link
[17:04:57] <Giles Heron> I had the same issue in the chairs lunch
[17:05:23] <Giles Heron> (the meetecho guys gave me a link for an RTSP stream that I pulled into VLC)
[17:05:24] <dennis cai> didn't hear anything
[17:05:24] <Rob Shakir> Are you using meetecho giles?
[17:05:25] akatlas joins the room
[17:05:29] <Giles Heron> yup
[17:05:35] <dennis cai> same here
[17:05:38] <Simon Dredge> ditto - no audio
[17:05:38] <Robert Raszuk> There is audio via streaming
[17:05:55] nordmark joins the room
[17:06:11] <Giles Heron> Yup the stream works
[17:06:12] <Kira Makhijani> yes, http://ietf90streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf/ietf902.m3u
[17:06:19] <Rob Shakir> http://ietf90streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf/ietf901.m3u
[17:06:24] <Rob Shakir> This should be the room that we are in.
[17:06:37] <Rob Shakir> Stefano updating on the various SR architecture and use case drafts.
[17:06:49] <dennis cai> got audio from stream, but didn't see the slide or video either here
[17:07:06] Sriganesh Kini joins the room
[17:07:07] <Rob Shakir> Segment routing use cases — WG adopted, and pretty much finalised.
[17:07:08] <Giles Heron> yes - no slides of video
[17:07:18] <Giles Heron> so it's just a rather heavyweight jabber client ;)
[17:07:27] <Wes George> there is a meet echo machine in the room, but no driver
[17:07:29] <Wes George> that might be why
[17:07:34] <Giles Heron> ah
[17:07:37] bpenfield leaves the room
[17:07:38] <Rob Shakir> Segment routing architecture - some significant re-working.
[17:07:47] <Rob Shakir> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-6.pdf
[17:07:53] <Rob Shakir> Is the presentation, I'll call out slide #.
[17:08:00] <dhruvdhody> Meetecho person seems to be not in the room, so i think you are stuck with audio stream and jabber
[17:08:10] Giles Heron leaves the room
[17:08:18] Giles Heron joins the room
[17:08:27] <Rob Shakir> Slide 4 - MPLS.
[17:08:52] <Rob Shakir> Slide 5 - LDP interop with SR.
[17:08:56] <Simon Dredge> thx guys - audio stream is good
[17:09:07] <Rob Shakir> Slide 6 - SR use cases.
[17:09:54] <Rob Shakir> This will be re-named and re-submitted based on the redist of content.
[17:09:59] <Rob Shakir> Slide 7: Questions? :-)
[17:10:30] <Rob Shakir> Next step will be to WGLC the adopted docs. Starting on the list after this meeting for a fortnight.
[17:10:55] nordmark leaves the room
[17:11:00] nordmark joins the room
[17:11:13] <Rob Shakir> Discussion of whether SR architecture should be adopted by the WG.
[17:11:21] bpenfield joins the room
[17:11:40] <Rob Shakir> Will be polled when the next revision is made.
[17:12:06] <Rob Shakir> No significant comments w.r.t the problem statement draft.
[17:12:26] <Rob Shakir> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-12.pdf
[17:12:37] <Rob Shakir> John Brzozowski
[17:13:15] <Rob Shakir> Slide 1: Objectives
[17:13:21] <Rob Shakir> Oops, slide 2.
[17:14:59] <Rob Shakir> Slide 4: Stretch goals
[17:15:19] <Rob Shakir> Some 'SDNish' twists to go to a controller to get SRH
[17:16:05] <Rob Shakir> NETCONF/YANG models - with some discussion as to when/how to bring work to SPRING.
[17:17:07] R R joins the room
[17:18:11] <Rob Shakir> Slide 6: Autonomous SR.
[17:18:21] <Rob Shakir> Sourcing any traffic to and from/internet with SR.
[17:18:37] <Rob Shakir> Slide 7: SR to SR - two networks interacting with each other contained within BnB network.
[17:18:40] akatlas leaves the room
[17:18:41] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[17:19:04] <Rob Shakir> Slide 8: Introducing the cable network - SR sourced within the home -  colours in the diagrams indicates SR-cable links.
[17:19:41] <Rob Shakir> Slide 9: Link bypassing the routing protocol - to engineer a unique path/separate path for SR.
[17:19:59] <Rob Shakir> Any questions/comments?
[17:21:00] <Rob Shakir> IPv6 SPRING Use Cases - http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-7.pdf
[17:21:05] <Rob Shakir> Roberta Maglione presenting.
[17:21:26] <Rob Shakir> Slide 2: Motivations
[17:21:33] Hadriel Kaplan joins the room
[17:22:06] Hadriel Kaplan leaves the room
[17:22:40] Hadriel Kaplan joins the room
[17:22:47] <Rob Shakir> Slide 3: Use Cases
[17:22:56] <Rob Shakir> Summary of all the use cases that are in the document.
[17:23:03] akatlas joins the room
[17:24:02] <Rob Shakir> Slide 4: Changes in -01
[17:24:39] <Rob Shakir> Slide 5: Next steps - inviting review of the doc.
[17:25:04] <Rob Shakir> Slide 6: Any questions?
[17:25:31] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[17:26:02] <Rob Shakir> Jen from Google - disagrees with the v6 traffic not being carried via mpls tunnels in their network.
[17:26:09] Paul Martinko leaves the room
[17:26:23] Simon Dredge leaves the room
[17:26:51] <Rob Shakir> Wes George - point is that we cannot run mpls w/only v6 control plane.
[17:26:52] Hadriel Kaplan leaves the room
[17:27:09] <Rob Shakir> Hannes Gredler - back to the use cases slide.
[17:27:21] <Rob Shakir> SPRING in the core network - with TE network in the core - do we assume h/w support for this?
[17:27:32] <Rob Shakir> Stefano Previdi - yes.
[17:27:36] <Rob Shakir> Hannes: Good luck :-)
[17:27:58] <Rob Shakir> Robin from Huawei - provided comments about SR in the DC.
[17:28:13] Louis Fourie joins the room
[17:28:15] <Rob Shakir> Question as to whether this is intra-DC rather than for DCI.
[17:28:33] <Rob Shakir> Roberta - idea is to use it for service chaining within the DC.
[17:29:00] Paul Martinko joins the room
[17:29:04] <Rob Shakir> Robin - question as to how popular it is use IPv6 in the DC. Understanding that Layer 2 used in this environment.
[17:29:19] <Rob Shakir> Ron Bonica - SPRING in the core network. Are you considering FRR?
[17:29:23] <Rob Shakir> Roberta: yes
[17:29:40] <Rob Shakir> Ron: Where you might need to insert segment IDs in the SRH, then have you figured the h/w impact?
[17:29:44] <Rob Shakir> Stefano again: yes.
[17:30:07] <Rob Shakir> Luyuan Fang: datacentres running @ l2 is not true.
[17:30:24] <Rob Shakir> Robin: proposal to use an overlay rather than ipv6 network.
[17:30:30] Hadriel Kaplan joins the room
[17:30:40] <Rob Shakir> Alvaro: This has been adopted since last time. According to milestones this should move forward too.
[17:30:54] <Rob Shakir> Please make comments on the mailing list.
[17:31:14] <Rob Shakir> Bruno Decraene - Orange. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-11.pdf
[17:31:32] <Rob Shakir> Slide 2: Objective.
[17:32:19] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[17:32:34] <Rob Shakir> Slide 3: Unmanaged local protection (FRR)
[17:32:47] <Rob Shakir> Two routing options - bypass in green in the diagram.
[17:32:54] Simon Dredge joins the room
[17:33:04] <Rob Shakir> Goal to merge back to original path as soon as possible.
[17:33:26] <Rob Shakir> Red option - shortest-path to destination (rather than nhop/nnhop)
[17:33:36] <Rob Shakir> Slide 4: Managed local protection
[17:34:47] <Rob Shakir> Slide 5: Summary of approaches.
[17:35:02] <Rob Shakir> Have path protection, management-free local protection and managed local-protection all described.
[17:35:17] <Rob Shakir> No live demo to propose :-(
[17:35:44] <Rob Shakir> Alvaro: This is the 3rd use case draft — to keep up with the milestones. Please comment on the list if you have questions/thoughts.
[17:35:51] <Rob Shakir> Carlos - OAM use case.
[17:36:02] nordmark leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[17:36:05] <Rob Shakir> OAM Use Case <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-0.pdf>
[17:36:16] <Rob Shakir> (Someone from Cisco rather than Carlos, apologies, didn't get the name.)
[17:36:28] <Carlos Pignataro_5780> Sorry Carlos is remote :-) Nagendra Kumar will present this for the co-authors. Thanks, Nagendra!
[17:36:37] <Rob Shakir> Slide 1
[17:36:41] <Rob Shakir> Hey Carlos — thanks :-)
[17:37:52] <Rob Shakir> Slide 2: Discussions on the list
[17:38:10] <Rob Shakir> Document is being spruced up to fit more like a use case.
[17:38:15] Christian Hopps leaves the room
[17:38:21] <Rob Shakir> Authors question — should this be more data-plane agnostic?
[17:39:02] <Rob Shakir> Greg Mirsky, Ericsson: In the author's view, how critical is the use of the path monitoring system (PMS) in this system?
[17:39:07] Simon Dredge leaves the room
[17:39:27] <Rob Shakir> It looks like you are trying to do unidirectional continuity check probes, why not look at the same architecture as LMAP?
[17:39:47] <Rob Shakir> A: It's possible, the PMS builds the stack of probes, we could re-use the solution.
[17:39:52] Simon Dredge joins the room
[17:40:14] <Rob Shakir> Greg: it might be interesting to generalise this. especially due to positive negatives based on network instability
[17:40:30] <Rob Shakir> Ed Crabbe, Google: Not sure he agrees with the last comment.
[17:41:01] <Rob Shakir> Obviously Google has presented on this before. If you have multiple probe systems, which have unique sub-set of the total path set traversing a given link, then you can identify a fault uniquely for a failure.
[17:41:13] <Rob Shakir> Which handles the case that was brought up.
[17:41:22] <Rob Shakir> Alvaro: comments/questions?
[17:41:35] <Rob Shakir> New use case draft.
[17:41:36] <Rob Shakir> Service Function Chaining Use Case for SPRING <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-5.pdf>
[17:41:45] <Carlos Pignataro_5780> The use case is about the ability to use a central point (PMS) and use of spring/SR to have arbitrary connectivity verification test and do not need the correlation
[17:42:05] <Rob Shakir> Slide 2: SFC Background
[17:43:10] <Rob Shakir> Carlos — I think the concern was that in the case that you do have the PMS and its connectivity to/from a certain part of the network fails, then you might detect something that wasn't the failure of the link you were testing.
[17:43:27] <Rob Shakir> Ed's comment was that this doesn't matter if you have multiple monitoring points, you can then correlate failures to determine what the real root cause is.
[17:43:30] <Rob Shakir> I think.
[17:43:36] <Rob Shakir> Slide 3: Motivation
[17:44:43] <Rob Shakir> Slide 4: Encoding the SFP as an Label Stack
[17:44:43] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[17:46:27] Prashant Kumar joins the room
[17:46:46] <Rob Shakir> Slide 5: Encoding the SFP as an Label Stack (cont.)
[17:48:03] <Rob Shakir> Slide 6: Encoding the SFC as a label stack.
[17:48:05] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[17:50:24] <Rob Shakir> Slide 7: Encoding the SFC as a label stack (II)
[17:51:03] <dennis cai> lost audio for a while
[17:51:12] <Rob Shakir> Anyone else?
[17:51:35] <Rob Shakir> Slide 8: How to allocate Global Labels for SFs
[17:52:42] <Rob Shakir> Slide 9: Next Steps - WG adoptions?
[17:52:55] <Rob Shakir> (?): What are the maximum labels that you are going to have?
[17:53:06] <Rob Shakir> A: It depends on the number of service nodes you will traverse.
[17:53:10] <Rob Shakir> (?): 2-3
[17:53:12] <Rob Shakir> ?
[17:53:25] <Rob Shakir> (?): What about meta-data?
[17:53:51] <Rob Shakir> A: If meta-data req'd then either the NSH/SCH should be used. How to do this is out of scope.
[17:54:26] <Rob Shakir> Jeff Tantasura (Ericsson): Why does the SF label block need to be global? It's a context label - why does it need to be a globally unique label?
[17:55:08] <Rob Shakir> A: No difference to the usage in SR?
[17:56:02] <Rob Shakir> John Scudder: No different to the global labels proposed in the architecture? The WG /could/ look at a bunch of work-cases, but it is focusing towards a set of interesting ones that drive the technology. Are there new requirements?
[17:56:26] <Rob Shakir> John Scudder (as a WG member): if there are no new requirements, then not seeing the need to adopt a new WG draft.
[17:56:45] <Rob Shakir> Doesn't see that the WG needs to publish every valid use-case.
[17:57:09] <Rob Shakir> Alvaro: Questions/comments?
[17:57:16] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[17:57:25] <Rob Shakir> Segment Routing in the IP RAN: Segment Routing in IP RAN use case <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-4.pdf>
[17:58:00] <Rob Shakir> Trying to explore whether there are new requirements.
[17:58:13] <Rob Shakir> slide 3: Traditional IP RAN Network.
[17:58:34] <Rob Shakir> slide 4: Requirements for traditional IP RAN network
[17:58:51] <Rob Shakir> Slide 5: What SR can bring to IP RAN
[17:59:05] <Rob Shakir> Slide 6: Unified Service Deployment
[17:59:23] <Rob Shakir> Slide 7: Requirements for the controller.
[17:59:41] <Rob Shakir> Slide 8: Next steps — soliciting comments and inviting co-authors.
[18:00:33] <Rob Shakir> Greg Mirsky, Ericsson: In your requirements, you mention transport. In the RAN, transport is bi-directional. How are you dealing with the fact that in SR the constructs are not bi-dir?
[18:00:44] <Rob Shakir> A: We need to explore this. It's a case we will see whether it is required.
[18:01:10] <Rob Shakir> Greg: Do you think that the use case has a requirement that in SR we need bidir?
[18:01:15] <Rob Shakir> A: Yes, it may need to.
[18:01:33] <Rob Shakir> Ahmed Bashandy, Cisco: Read the documents, all the requirements are covered within the other drafts.
[18:01:43] <Rob Shakir> Ahmed: Do the requirements need new drafts/protocol requirements.
[18:01:53] bpenfield leaves the room
[18:02:02] <Rob Shakir> A: We are looking to do this - working with service providers.
[18:03:02] <Rob Shakir> Robin, Huawei: SR in the IP RAN is different from the IP core. Could include more nodes, we proposed the requirements for the MBH - the depths of label stacks with the number of explicit paths are a challenge.
[18:03:23] <Rob Shakir> Robin, Huawei: FRR in the MBH is different, because of rings (whereas core may be full mesh).
[18:04:13] <Rob Shakir> Stewart Bryant: In order not to have an infinite number of use cases - pick a version of the base architecture and then ask for the deltas to the base architecture. Over and above that if there are 0, then no need to publish the document.
[18:04:46] <Rob Shakir> Stefano - Segment Routing Centralized Egress Peer Engineering.
[18:04:53] <Rob Shakir> Segment Routing Centralized Egress Peer Engineering <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-8.pdf>
[18:05:03] <Rob Shakir> Slide 2: Motivations
[18:05:32] <Rob Shakir> Slide 3: Motivations (II)
[18:06:49] <Rob Shakir> Slide 4: Reference diagram - today's approach is based on an ingress box selecting an exit point.
[18:07:24] <Rob Shakir> Want to be able to influence external selection.
[18:07:35] <Rob Shakir> Slide 5: Objective: centralised egress peer engineering
[18:08:57] <Rob Shakir> (small mic troubles)
[18:10:45] <Rob Shakir> Slide 6: Automated BGP Peering SID allocation
[18:10:50] Juan-Pedro Cerezo Martin joins the room
[18:11:11] Juan-Pedro Cerezo Martin leaves the room
[18:11:19] <Rob Shakir> Slide 7: BGP EPE Routes
[18:11:41] <Rob Shakir> The BGP-LS extensions mentioned here have been submitted to IDR.
[18:12:24] <Rob Shakir> Slide 8: Controller - Decision
[18:13:18] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[18:13:24] <Rob Shakir> Slide 9: Controller Programming — examples of what Stefano just described.
[18:13:26] Abhay Roy joins the room
[18:13:28] Albert Tian joins the room
[18:14:04] <Rob Shakir> Slide 10: Conclusion
[18:15:05] <Rob Shakir> Slide 11: Questions?
[18:15:42] <Rob Shakir> Hannes, Juniper: More a suggestion, for the architecture draft, it might be beneficial to document why using 3107 for managing the load across the inter-AS load is not sufficient.
[18:16:14] <Rob Shakir> Guiding document for saying 3107 for learning about egress label for <various> reasons.
[18:16:33] <Rob Shakir> Robin, Huawei: One clarification - automated segment ID allocation. Not sure what the method of doing this is.
[18:17:04] <Rob Shakir> Stefano: All the labels are local labels, no need for SRGB use.
[18:18:06] <Rob Shakir> George Swallow, Cisco: Two comments. Some SPs use n-h-s, 3107 would work if the actual neighbour's address is used.
[18:18:25] <Rob Shakir> George: The other question around iBGP - this can also be introduced with LDP and RSVP-TE with the same beneifts.
[18:18:42] <Rob Shakir> Greg Mirsky, Ericsson - BFD Directed Return Path <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-1.pdf>
[18:19:14] <Rob Shakir> Slide 2: Problem statement
[18:20:14] <Rob Shakir> Slide 3: Problem Statement
[18:20:35] <Rob Shakir> Slide 4: Proposed solution
[18:20:36] Albert Tian leaves the room
[18:20:57] JPC   joins the room
[18:21:07] Albert Tian joins the room
[18:21:07] JPC   leaves the room
[18:21:31] <Rob Shakir> Slide 5:TLV
[18:21:39] <Rob Shakir> Slide 6: Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV
[18:22:26] <Rob Shakir> Slide 7: Segment Routing IPv6 Tunnel sub-TLV.
[18:22:32] Prashant Kumar leaves the room
[18:23:10] <Rob Shakir> Slide 8: Control reverse direction of BFD session
[18:23:12] <Rob Shakir> Slide 9: Next steps
[18:23:34] JP Cerezo joins the room
[18:23:37] <Rob Shakir> Robin, Huawei: MPLS Path Programming <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-spring-3.pdf>
[18:24:06] Albert Tian leaves the room
[18:24:13] <Rob Shakir> Slide 2: Intro
[18:24:41] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[18:25:07] <Rob Shakir> Slide 3: History Review (1)
[18:25:48] JP Cerezo leaves the room
[18:26:51] Prashant Kumar joins the room
[18:27:52] Abhay Roy leaves the room
[18:28:20] Abhay Roy joins the room
[18:28:54] <Rob Shakir> Slide 4: History Review (2)
[18:31:22] <Rob Shakir> Slide 5: MPLS Path programming capability
[18:32:10] <Rob Shakir> slide 6: MPLS Path Programming Capability (2)
[18:33:45] <Rob Shakir> Slide 7: Use Cases
[18:33:54] <Rob Shakir> Slide 8: Use cases for unicast service
[18:34:10] Giles Heron leaves the room
[18:36:25] <Rob Shakir> Slide 9: Use cases for Multicast Services
[18:37:33] <Rob Shakir> Slide 10: Use Cases of MPLS Virtual Network
[18:38:09] <Rob Shakir> Slide 11: Use Case Summary
[18:39:55] <Rob Shakir> Slide 12: Architecture of MPLS Path Programming
[18:41:46] <Rob Shakir> Slide 13: Central Control for MPLS Path Programming
[18:42:35] <Rob Shakir> Slide 14: Protocol Extensions Requirements for Service-Oriented MPLS Path Programming
[18:43:16] nordmark joins the room
[18:45:07] nordmark leaves the room
[18:45:12] nordmark joins the room
[18:45:28] <Rob Shakir> Luyuan Fang: Pg13, disagree that SR is a typical solution.
[18:45:59] <Rob Shakir> You made a good comment, but then before reachability with 5 lbls, server-server goes through DC-core-DC how many labels will you support?
[18:46:24] <Rob Shakir> We would like to minimise the number of labels.
[18:46:34] <Rob Shakir> We would also like to minimise the number of protocol extensions.
[18:46:50] <Rob Shakir> Robin: Label stack - not a worry for this draft.
[18:48:56] internetplumber leaves the room
[18:50:12] dhruvdhody leaves the room
[18:51:01] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[18:51:14] Paolo saviano joins the room
[18:51:30] <Rob Shakir> Alvaro: We would like to take advantage of the open mic.
[18:52:05] <Rob Shakir> (?): Interested in exploring the inter-working of OpenFlow and SPRING.
[18:53:28] akatlas leaves the room
[18:53:30] R R leaves the room
[18:53:39] Sriganesh Kini leaves the room
[18:53:41] Slide Feed leaves the room
[18:53:55] Paul Martinko leaves the room
[18:54:21] Rob Shakir leaves the room
[18:54:27] Abhay Roy leaves the room
[18:54:52] Dick Chen leaves the room
[18:54:59] dennis cai leaves the room
[18:55:00] Simon Dredge leaves the room
[18:55:02] Carlos Pignataro_5780 leaves the room
[18:55:20] Hadriel Kaplan leaves the room
[18:55:25] Prashant Kumar leaves the room
[18:55:30] Robert Raszuk leaves the room
[18:55:36] Paolo saviano leaves the room
[18:56:25] Room Feed leaves the room
[18:59:24] Wes George leaves the room
[19:01:20] nordmark leaves the room
[19:02:22] Louis Fourie leaves the room
[19:13:48] Carlos Pignataro leaves the room
[19:25:22] Wes George joins the room
[19:26:09] Wes George leaves the room
[19:53:29] Rob Shakir joins the room
[19:56:01] nordmark joins the room
[19:56:13] nordmark leaves the room
[20:05:32] Kira Makhijani leaves the room
[20:26:22] Rob Shakir leaves the room
[20:29:15] Rob Shakir joins the room
[21:01:51] Rob Shakir leaves the room
[21:15:57] Rob Shakir joins the room
[21:16:25] Rob Shakir leaves the room
[21:16:30] Rob Shakir joins the room
[23:14:56] Rob Shakir leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!