OSPF WG Meeting - Philadelphia - March 11, 2008 Michael Barnes (mjbarnes@cisco.com) 15:20 Review agenda 15:27 Document status review - Abhay Roy and Acee Lindem No documents published, 3 in IESG evaluation 2 WG drafts finished, waiting on ADs and implementations OSPFv3 TE: * Waiting on implementations for interop WG last call: LLS and OSPFv3 MIB: * For LLS we will accept comments regarding clarifications, but not changes to the protocol Documents close to WG last call: * OSPFv3 alt AF draft. * OSPF HMAC Crypto Auth * OSPF TE node addr Need more review and discussion: * OSPFv3 MT - Big change, needs quite a bit more discussion and some commitment to implement * OSPFV2 MIB for MT - Ccould move forward Non-WG documents: * System name mech * OSPFv2 Multi-Instance * Transport Instance Drafts that have lost momentum: * Extentions to v2 for Adv Optional Route/Link Attributes * IPsec for OSPFv2 Question regarding PW3 document (Andrew's draft) Acee - not a big fan Dave Ward - have the authors give another presentation Dimitri Papadimitriou - What is holdup? comments raised were addressed (e.g. possibility to segment between instances when solution will be made available by OSPF WG see Section 5.3). Acee - Number of people didn't like it, but we are deferring to PW3 group. Now it seems that PW3 is supporting it so can bring it back to OSPF WG for consideration. Danny McPherson - Should be in PW3 or OSPF? Dimitri (Post WG Meeting): I would like to keep the discussion at the technical level if any remaining - ping-pong between working groups do not help solving them. 15:40 OSPFv2/v3 System Name - Danny McPherson (See Slides) Almost the same presentation as Vancouver, some updates after comments on the list. Acee - Show of hands for support: some for, none against. 15:45 Mutli-Instance for OSPFv2 update - Acee (See Slides) Draft has been refreshed Les Ginsberg - Concern about legacy implementations receiving packets they will dump? Acee - No 15:50 Transport Instance Draft - Acee (See Slides) Will be pushing harder for this, discuss on list Dimitri (post WG meeting) - OSPF WG should be open to alternate solutions and should define the problem that is being solved. Les - would you consider altering name to be like that of ISIS? Acee - let's take this offline Acee - GenApps name is obscure. Transport Instance is more descriptive. Les - Will you come to ISIS meeting to ask ISIS WG to change name? Danny - Would like to see names aligned Dimitri - Are there rules for when an opaque LSA should use the transport instance? Acee - My feeling is that it could be used for something like TE LSAs but would not ask for a previous user of OSPF flooding to change Les - Another reason to have the two IGP WGs working together on this draft, rules should be the same for both ISIS and OSPF Abhay - TE information is already in Opaque LSAs Dave - Dimitri was just using TE as an example to show that we need rules as to when a client's opaque LSAs should be in the transport instance. Acee - We can not tell someone to move to transport instance after the fact. Dave - Could be moved, but there would have to be a mechanism to transition. Acee - Two classes, information (current Opaque LSA users) that COULD go into transport instance, and new uses which we will say MUST use transport instance. Dave - We need rules and transition mechanism. Just need to think our way through it. 16:00 Update on MANET - Abhay (See slides) Drafts have had very few changes and are considered stable. Will start to last call all three drafts to go to experimental. draft-ietf-ospf-manet-mdr-00.txt Richard Ogier wants spin one more revision prior to last call. 16:02 Wrap up - Acee Expectations for July 2008 meeting In Dublin, there will be presentation/discussion on multi-segment PW3 discovery Dimitri - Reiterates his interest in alternate solutions to the separation problem. 16:09 Meeting is adjourned