IETF 75 OSPF Open Shortest Path First WG (ospf) Thursday, July 30, 15:10 - 16:10, Room 307 ==================================== CHAIR(s): Abhay Roy Acee Lindem SCRIBE: Albert Tian (tian@redback.com) AGENDA: o Administriva 5 minutes - Mailing list: ospf@ietf.org * Subscribe/Unsubscribe: ospf-request@ietf.org with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the body of the message * Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/current/index.html - Scribe? - Blue Sheets Agenda bash ASON + Routing discussion has been going on for the fast 4 years. Some new requests recently. o Document Status - Acee/Abhay 15 minutes No RFC, Two pretty close Two in RFCs queue - dynamic hostname moved rather fast. IESG review SHA-HMAC draft went through last call. udpated in may, need to be updated again, in security considerations. WG Finished: OSPF TE Node Address Last call soon, AD review in parallel OSPF MTR MIB draft expired. Let it sleep till implementation available Active drafts: OSPF MANET OR Draft: Abhay: Do we really need to define jitter? o Charter Update and Closing - Acee/Abhay 10 minutes Abhay: OSPF MTR MIB and v3 MTR waiting for implementation Addition to the charter 5 items Acee: V2 IPSec may need to be resurrected. Acee: Kmart and OIF work is coming Acee: OIF Encoding work should be done in CCAMP since it builds on GMPL TE extensions. Acee: Hopefully the TE work will satisfy the ASON requirement o Update on "LDP IGP Synchronization for Broadcast Networks" 10 minutes draft-lu-ldp-igp-sync-bcast-00.txt - Wenhu Lu Acee: Vote whether this is not working and some thing needs to be done here: 3 for 1 against, The gentleman against it commented "it is working, this is optimization" Dave Ward: Should amend existing LDP-IGP Sync RFC. Too bad we didn't get the comment in, before it became RFC in MPLS WG. o OIF ASON OSPF TE Routing Extensions 15 minutes draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-08.txt - Lyndon Ong Acee: Why use different link when they are at different layer? Wouldn't there be cardinality? Lyndon: Lets discuss whether they should have different advertisement or not, could advertise separately or combine advertisements together. We only have some prototypes for two levels, Ward: We choose protocol unwisely for ASON (alluding to the NSAP requirement). Acee: Is NSAP really needed? Deborah Brungard: No time to digest, hope for more context how to implement, looking for alternative solution, bring to CCAMP. This did not show up in ASON, first time show up here. Not an ASON requirement from ITU. Lyndon: This is requirement out of OIF Just had meeting last week, still working on that, people can work with us. Q (Lou Berger?): local connection type: don't get it. are you cross connecting two links? Q: two links same capability, have to collect them together. what is really missing? Lyndon: With ISCD, you can not indicate that you can not switch the signal through example: if a node is not allowed to switch through, but is dual homed. How do you know that it can not be used as transit node? One can use cost, but that is not guarantee. Q (Lou or Steward Bryant?): Can crank back the signaling. Lyndon: Need to prevent the link from being tried by signaling, if there are some admin agreement (preventing that) Q (Deborah): multi-layer, for multi-domain, we already have documents. hope we need to receive more info, context. then we have more to analyze. A (Lyndon): Not enough time yet, Do we need to describe requirements first? Q (Lou or Deborah); We need requirements. A (Lyndon) Solution is to ISCD, maybe there is another solution. Q (Bryant): Are each network orthoganal? A (Lyndon): It is true Q (Dave Ward?): Why we need to understand one instance vs another, because each instace is separate? Are we trying to manage multi layers at once A (Lyndon): Yes, we want one instace manage multiple layers. Q (Dave): Why can't we use separate instance? A (Lyndon): My interpretation is that we will not create multi-instances Q (Ross Callon): IETF change protocol, get people together, use mailing list Q (Tony Li): Are you trying to switch signal from one layer to another? A: (Lyndon>: Don't think so Dave Ward: You have to say no Acee: you can take lower layer in to the path computation in high layer Stewart: We can use link property for that A: needs further discussion Acee: Base OSPF is not ideally suited to this, but OSPF Transport Instance is although the computation isn't compatible with base OSPF. How you use the GMPL TE is a CCAMP question. A: Concrete example -carry info in ISCD Acee: More discussion on this as I suspect you all want to get out before the cookies are gone. Acee: Thanks Ross Callon for serving for 4 years as Routing AD. Ross is stepping down after the next IETF and OSPF may or may not be meeting in Hiroshima.