Last Modified: 2005-01-25
|Aug 03||Submit an I-D describing MIB for VPLS|
|Aug 03||Submit an I-D describing MIB for VPWS|
|Aug 03||Submit an I-D on OAM for VPLS|
|Aug 03||Submit an I-D on OAM for VPWS|
|Oct 03||Submit L2 requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC|
|Done||Identify VPLS and VPWS solutions for the WG|
|Done||Submit L2 framework to IESG for publication as Informational RFC|
|Dec 03||Submit VPLS solution documents to IESG|
|Dec 03||Submit VPWS solution documents to IESG|
|Jan 04||Submit IP-only L2VPN solution documents to IESG|
|Feb 04||Submit MIB for VPLS to IESG|
|Feb 04||Submit MIB for VPWS to IESG|
|Mar 04||Submit OAM for VPWS to IESG|
|Mar 04||Submit OAM for VPLS to IESG|
|Apr 04||Submit OAM for IP L2VPN to IESG|
March 8, 2005, 1:00 pm: Layer 2 Virtual Private Network WG Meeting Minutes
Co-Chairs: Rick Wilder, Vach Kompella, Loa Andersson
Rick Wilder opened the meeting. No change on agenda.
Loa Andersson announced that he will step down as Layer 2 chair, as he is becoming an IAB member. Mark Townsley is the new AD for the Internet Area.
Agenda bashing: The last item, Cheng-Yin Lee’s presentation is cancelled.
Status update on documents in progress:
Framework document is in RFC queue.
Requirement doc is in IESG review.
Vpls-bgp and vpls-ldp are on standards track, under review.
Himanshu on ARP mediation draft – see presentation slides: no discussions on mailing list, no draft update since last WG meeting. Some ID nits on IANA allocation and security section. IPLS draft is in same state. Both ready for last call after final updates to become IETF draft.
Thomas Narten – Stepping down as AD. Wants to ensure there are at least one or two implementations for VPLS, otherwise it can prevent a document from moving forward.
Loa: requests clarification on whether implementations are a definite requirement for progression of documents in the Internet area.
L2VPN provisioning and signaling (authors Eric Rosen, Bruce Davie and Vasile Radioca) – presented by Bruce Davie of Cisco
Draft now covers provisioning, discovery and signaling. New change addresses inter-AS issues. This builds on Luca Martini’s draft on pseudo-wire switching. Clarifying text on BGP autodiscovery. Same options in multi-AS as for RFC2547-bis. Bruce presented a picture similar to Option C. Possible drawback – advert PE loopback address, no control on inter-AS signaling. Presented next picture similar to 2547-bis option B. Signaling sessions are not PE-PE any more but in segments.
Slide on BGP autodiscovery. AFI, SAFI piece needs to get nailed down so that there is single AFI for all L2VPN solutions, and different SAFI for l2vpn-ldp and l2vpn-bgp.
Next slide describes signaling previously defined didn’t work for inter-AS VPN case. Talking to Hamid Ouldbrahim to keep everything in-synch with BGP autodiscovery draft. Also have to finalize IANA section. Requested last call.
Yakov Rekhter: What is the relationship between VPN ID in L2VPN and Route Target for L3VPN. If AGI and route targets are the same we should not have two terms for the same thing.
Bruce Davie: AGI is defined in requirements for L2VPN.
Eric Rosen: AGI can be VPN ID for non-BGP and Route Target for BGP.
Vach Kompella: Significant changes requested, so postpone Last Call until after next draft version.
L2VPN OAM requirements and framework:
Dinesh Mohan, Nortel
Framework propose OAM layering across entities – L2VPN service layer, pseudo-wire layer, PSN layer – also includes customer, SP, Network Operator roles.
Requirements: Focus on Service Layer, Pseudo-wire layer
General status update provided from last IETF meeting – Editorial updates to VPWS and IPLS sections added. VPWS is TBD and IPLS – for future study. OAM framework updated – VPLS can be a service, network or emulation. Dinesh read from next slide. ECMP implications and priority considered. Periodicity of OAM depending on protection considered. VPWS and IPLS OAM requirements to be added. Drafts on these have been introduced, and will be included as applicable.
See presentation slides for next steps.
Vach: Spirited discussion in last IETF as unclear where it was going. Comment: presentation is more informative than draft, so need to edit text to make it more relevant to IETF work.
Rick: summary of last meeting is scope of work, and that’s still not in document.
Dinesh: some work in PWE3 is following the layers constructs that have been introduced in this draft.
Alex Sajassi, Cisco: VPLS as service, network and LAN/VLAN was discussed in last mtg, and that has been put in the doc.
Dinesh introduced a backup slide on how different layers come together – Services (Service OAM), Network (Network OAM) and Transport Links/PWE3 (Ethernet Link OAM, PW/MPLS OAM, EoSONET OAM or Other OAM)
Vach Kompella (not as Chair): Service may traverse Ethernet bridge network or VPLS. Need to be clear what we are working on here. The service model should be clearly in the context of VPLS.
Dinesh: We are not following IEEE which is focusing on Ethernet bridge, but on PWE3/PSN.
Using RADIUS for PE-based VPN discovery: Greg Weber
Mark Townsley, Wei Luo, Skip Booth, Greg Weber, Juha Heihanen
Now version 01 is WG draft. This doc specifies RADIUS specific mapping for protocol independent model.
L2VPN authorization steps: New text in this draft, to ensure that terminology is in line with signaling draft, generalized to cover VPLS, VPWS.
RADIUS transactions and examples.
To do: A lot left to do: Address accounting, authorization changes, presenting this draft to RADIUS extension (RADEXT) WG to get ideas/feedback.
Vach: We agreed in last meeting that this is a direction should be taken, and we are seeing a better picture of what Mark T was talking about, but little discussion on mailing list. Would like to see lot more participation to ensure that we are headed in the right direction.
Ron from Resolute: Is the problem being solved for authentication or for provisioning?
Greg: more provisioning, RADIUS server is already being used for this type of role in deployments. The servers could also be used in dial-up scenarios.
Mark: Discovery using RADIUS for specifically centralized server based discovery and provisioning. The opinion has been that RADIUS is preferred over LDAP and DNS for auto-discovery with a centralized server.
Supporting IP Multicast over VPLS: Venu Hemige
Problem: Multicast traffic being sent to all PE’s, goal to not send traffic to sites without receivers.
PIM snooping of PW’s can overwhelm PEs, PIM-refresh reduction and snooping CE-PE link helps overcome burden of PIM snooping in the core, and address reliability of join-prune PDU.
Defined LDP TLV defined to flush snooping state.
Eric Rosen, Cisco: PIM Refresh-reduction has to be friendly – but PIM WG is not likely to take this as a serious requirement in defining refresh-reduction. This is a hack, and will be fragile. Many providers take it as a serious requirement to pass on all that is put on the link and this violates that.
Vach: So should we take to PIM group? Let’s work on this draft in this WG till it matures enough and has enough consensus to send to PIM WG
Yakov Rekhter: Is packet retransmission being proposed to solution to unreliability of PIM control messages?
Yakov Rekhter: In unreliable situation, retransmit message is not part of PIM and is not sufficient. Use something in the way of PIM refresh reduction.
Kireeti Kompella: As IGMP snooping and PIM snooping are hacks that have already been implemented, why *document* them now?
Further discussion required on the mailing list.
Multicast in VPLS: Rahul Agarwal
Yuji Kamite, NTT, and Luyuan Fang, ATT
Update: VPLS mechanisms are in separate drafts and both have limitations for multicast.
Slide on limitations. Replication of traffic on ingress is possible, and optimizes state in P routers, but not bandwidth.
Optimizing bandwidth and state are conflicting goals.
VPLS multicast architecture control plane – use existing auto-discovery mechanisms, allow flooding elimination – PE-CE snooping in draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpl-mcast: PE does not maintain L2 adjacency with CE.
PIM snooping – and how there is a scalability problem
Use reliable exchange of multicast control messages between PE’s to avoid PIM snooping on PWs.
Design goals include using as little state as possible beyond VPLS unicast, and elimination of flooding
Aggregate P-multicast trees, to allow one P-multicast tree to be shared across multiple VPLS’s. Next slide described inclusive mapping.
Request to move forward.
Ali Sajassi: Suggesting solutions without having requirements in framework and requirements draft. Terminology doesn’t match. Issue is IGMP and PIM snooping’s applicability in SP network is questionable, maybe in Enterprise network. Also it is limited to IP traffic of user. What about VPLS.
Rahul: 2 SP’s on draft – so requirements being addressed. Snooping mentioned for PE-CE link only.
Alex: Offering diff services over same UNI is solved, why have new mechanism
Rahul: Specific solution for VPLS multicast.
??: Rather than use of IP addresses, the solution use MAC addresses – that covers Layer 2 mutlicast better. Can we make this more generic?
Rahul: Open if there is interest
Vach Kompella: This has requirements support – but need to formalize the requirements to cover mutlicast. Comment on using BGP to distribute state from PIM’s soft state to BGP hard state.
Yakov Rekhter: Looking at history, PIM’s refresh reduction makes it more hard state.
Vach: If PIM refresh reduction is done, why not snoop at that point.
Yakov: questioned if CE’s will implement refresh reduction. In this, multicast use in service provider is addressed in text.
Loa: Cut discussion here, as running short of time. Ask AD’s about document structure, and refer further discussion to mailing list.
Soft PVC ATM-MPLS interworking for PW
Not much change in draft presented in PWE3 group. Currently taken this to MPLS and Frame Relay Alliance, and probably is a better place to discuss this draft. This draft is probably going to get reduced to code points.
OAM procedures for VPWS interworking
See presentation slides for scope of draft and changes from last revision.
Ask WG to progress document to WG status. All or nearly all people who said they have read this draft agreed to make this a WG doc.
Mutli-hop PW Service
Dave McDysan, MCI and Florin Balus.
See presentation slides for MH PW challenges and solutions and for Use Cases on Inter-provider and Metro Access Interconnection.
Solutions addressed in 2 drafts: draft-martini-pwe3-switching, draft-balus-mh-pw-control
Further work to include: signaling, admission control, resiliency, explicit routing
Operational Consistency – Service Management, refer to draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol and balus draft
LDP extensions defined including MH PW TLV in LDP label mapping message
Operational walkthrough highlighting steps specific to MH PW
Slide on next steps: Does this work belong to PWE3 or L2VPN
Connections belong to PWE3, but discovery belongs to L2VPN
Bruce’s draft is for cases where BGP exists at stitching points, but that is not assumed here.
Bruce Davie: You can add discovery to the other draft. Very similar to martini-pwe3 draft. So, why need to introduce this in PW signaling instead of using FEC 129.
Keep signaling separate from routing.
Vach: Take discussion to mailing list as it is first time this draft discussed. We are out of time.