ForCES IETF 79 Meeting (Tuseday,Nov 9,2010 Beijing)

Minutes taker: Chuanhuang Li <chuanhuang_li@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn>

Presentation 1) Jamal introduced the agenda

Presentation 2) WG status - Jamal
Jamal introduced the documents published (RFC6041,RFC6053),
to be published and need to be completed.
If all(LFB lib and CEHA) are done, the work group may be shutdown.
Jamal: some errata with RFC5810 is still being held by Adrian.
Adrian: please nag me.

Presentation 3) Update of ForCES LFB library draft - Weiming
Weiming introduced the LFB definitions. A lot of discussion ensued 
for about 1 hour.

 EtherPHYCop LFB:
  Jamal: Can we support multiple virtual ports?
  Joel: We need to specify a mux LFB to achieve that goal
  Jamal: Can we add text to that effect in the draft?
  Joel: It is out of scope
Jamal was not happy with that answer and will send comments to the
list.

EtherMacIn LFB:
  Jamal: Do we need to define things other than L2bridging
processing?
  Joel: We want it there so we it doesnt create confusion in the future.

EtherClassifier LFB
  Jamal: about the Vlan input table, If there is no VLAN, how to process?
  Joel: according to IEEE spec, vlan ID 0 means no VLAN,...
  Weiming: What's the use of the logical port ID in this LFB?
  Joel: It's possible to be used. good to have it.

EtherEncapsulator LFB:
  Jamal: the only difference between ARP and NBR is the address? why
seperate?
  Joel: Two activities may happen in parallel with logicalportID as key

IPv4Validator LFB:
Scott Bradner commented that the use of RFC 2644 is wrong. Weiming to
look at draft to see if it is a cutnpaste error.


IPv4UcastLPM LFB:
  Jamal:About ECMP flag.
  Weiming: We define this flag, but we'll not define ECMP LFB in current
version.
  Jamal: So we need more text description.
Weiming agrees

ARP LFB:
  Jamal: If ARP is implemented in CE, where the Arp table is defined?
  Joel: Table is defined in EtherEncapsulator. CE needs to configure this 
table if ARP/NB function is implemented in CE. If defined in ARP lfb,
when theres no this lfb, CE cannot configure the table then.

RedirectIn LFB:
 Jamal: what's the metadata? what's the mean of "In" in the name?
 Weiming: The "RedirectIndex" metadata must be produced by CE to decide
which output port index will be."In" means input from CE to FE.

RedirectOut LFB:
 Jamal: Will the metadata be redirected? How can several path data packets
be redirected to CE?
 Joel:  All metadatas will be expected and encapsulated by ForCES protocol
redirect message.
 Weiming: input of the LFB has multiplex functions.

Use cases:
Jamal comments: need more explaination on the diagram.
Why not place it in  early in the document.
Weiming: seems hard to explain the notions if presented too early.
Jamal concludes: If you are implementing the ForCES router, you need read
the LFB draft ..... will read the draft thoroughly to understand if we
need to have this change.

Presentation 4) Intra-NE High Availability - Jamal
Draft is now WG item.
Jamal presented a quick status update from last time.

Presentation 5) ForCES Interoperability test - Kentaro
Jamal comments: need to implement IPsec. need more people to implement
it and participate the interop test.
Weiming comments, may be difficult to implemnet all the senarioes before
Mid-February.
Discussion carried off-line because of lack of time