WG status 09:00 chairs, 15 min Adrian (on the ldp-applicability-label-adv): I have asked the RFC editor to move the references as Informative Loa: make sure Kamran is fine with that Kamran: I talked to Adrian, and I am Adrian: on mpls-in-udp. I was behind on synchronizing with OPS ADs. I just did Loa: any volunteers for taking up editorship of mpls-tp-1ton-protection? Adrian (on #4012 Errata): I discussed with IANA/RFC Editor, best thing would be to bis the RFC Discussion on "MPLS Architectural Principles" 09:18 George, 30 min Kireeti: mpls is a proactive control plane, you do not wait for the dataplane packets to arrive Kireeti (on the label stack): it is a lesson we do not seem to be able to learn, we continue to have proposals with fixed 2-label stacks Stewart: some bad ideas turn out to be good ideas Adrian: I know of a couple of global labels, one is called IPv4, the other IPv6 Kireeti (on global labels): the fact that an entity can decide of its own labels as opposed to being imposed to you, is very powerfull also Ross (managing time): we are not going to reach conclusion on global labels now Adrian: could you comment on PIDs? Richard Li: something missing from presentation. Basis is that MPLS is used for forwarding swap/push/pop, but MPLS is now used for services George: accoustics really bad, we do not have time, let's discuss this to the list Richard: the presentation calls for lot's of discussion Loa: please continue the discussion on the list Stewart: would be really usefull if that presentation was written in some form of Informational draft draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return-02 10:02 Stewart, 10 min Eric O.: did you mean 6374? Stewart: yes Loa: I am fine with what you ask. in fact it is the authors who do the early allocation request to the chairs and ADs Yaakov: in relation to previous presentation. This is needed because LSPs are unidirectional Greg: in IPPM you have one way measurement draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed-00 Greg, 10 min Stewart: a simpler alternative, forward and return path as a single segment list and then run bfd echo mode Greg: idea has been discussed, but 5885 has put bfd echo out of scope but we are looking at this Sam: assume the return path fails Greg: the practical way, is to establish bidrectional co-routed and so you'll interpret a unidirectional failure as bidir deffect Sam: but how do you make sure it is bidirectional co-routed? [...] Ross: take it to the list Nobo: there is value in looking into Echo, but also for classical bfd Loa: Label Stack Element. what do you put here? Greg: this is the mechanism to transport it. what is placed is operator dependant Stewart: [...] Tarek: have you considered a list of segment IDs rather than a list of LSEs Greg: [...] [?] draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-00 10:28 Nobo, 10 min Sam: restating comment on list Nobo: taken into account. you'll see it in next revision draft-ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls-02 10:36 Ravi, 10 min Nobo: the document describes 2 different topics: entropy labels with concatenated labels: really usefull but the second part is really more of an optimization Could we split? Ravi: optimization is relevant in relation to the first part George: we should have a wider discussion on list Ross: [...] draft-vgovindan-mpls-extended-bfd-disc-tlv-00 10:43 Prasad, 10 min George: this should be discussed on both mpls and bfd lists Sharam: why can't we use different discriminators? Prasad: in bfd-mpls, if discriminator changes the session goes away draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-02 10:48 Weiqiang Cheng, 15 min Stewart: I can't fight you documenting what you have deployed in field but this gets complicated. why do we need complex ring protections? use routing if non trivial context Weiqiang: from my experience it is a feasible/simple one Eric: RFC6974; applicability of linear protection to ring you should demonstrate why this technology is not good enough Ross: in case we progress this as WG document, the relationship would have to be written indeed. But on the other hand there are other means to progress a document, especially when it documents deployed technonology: use independent submission Sharam: I do not view this as complex Stewart: I agree to what Ross said. Weiqiang: [...] Ross: of the two possible ways to progress the document, any preference? Weiqiang: will talk offline draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-egress-protection-01 11:07 Huaimo, 10 min The document is stable. here is an implementation. ready for WG LC Loa: [...] draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-ingress-protection-01 11:10 Ravi, 10 min Tarek: after the failure, would the p2mp tunnel fec persist? and if it changes what are the impacts? Huaimo: the fec will persist, as it will be used by backup ingress Tarek: two nodes will then assume the same identify? you should make this clear in draft Nobo: bfd can not make distinction between node and link failure we discussed that. thanks for taking into account that in the document draft-tsaad-mpls-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-02 Tarek, 10 min robin: [...] George: how many have read? (few) those that have read how many think it is usefull: (less) George: it seems we need a bit more discussion draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-02 Greg, 10 min Sharam: most hardware do send packet to cpu at ttl expiry this is a problem for your approach Greg: the cpu to which is goes is implementation dependent Sharam: what I meant is that the path your packet takes might now be different from the delay request-response which does not go to cpu Greg: you could carry any message in the TLV so you could acheive consistency Yaakov: you will nevertheless impact a lot of flows George: lot's of chips out there won't support this Greg: then they should not advertise the capability Yaakov: if mpls advances that draft please cross-review it in TICTOC draft-kompella-mpls-larp-01 Kireeti, 10 min Yacov: draft lacks motivation uncomfortable with touching ARP. Is there no other way? Kireeti: bgp, LDP-DOD. both heavyweight and need configuration backward compatibility section. drop unknown hardware type Luyuan: usefull mechanism. might be good to support label stack Ross: valuable discuss, take it to the list draft-li-mpls-global-label-framework-02 Robin, 10 min Nobo: identify the real problems rather than list what could be the uses-cases draft-li-mpls-seamless-mpls-mbh-00 Robin, 10 min Sharam: terminology on slide 12 is wrong Network should be PW and transport should be LSP Also, add L2 Robin: agree draft-raza-mpls-oam-ipv6-rao-00 Kamran, 10 min sharam: why do you need Router Alert at all? Kamram: as a last resort Adrian: please read 6398 draft-esale-mpls-appl-aware-ldp-targeted-session-00 Santosh Easale, 10 min Robin: interesting and usefull maybe another UC: mLDP node protection Santosh: good suggestion Kamran: [...] Ross: we need something like this [...]: we implemented rLFA. usefull draft draft-li-mpls-proxy-te-lsp-01 Xia, 10 min Ross: indeed solicit comments on the list and do not wait for chairs to do it draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-02 Zhenlong, 10 min Loa: why n>=m ? I will ask question on the list Greg: is it Informational? Zhenlong: not a solution, just a requirement draft Sharam: we had a case of 1:4 draft-li-mpls-serv-driven-co-lsp-fmwk-03 Shunwan, 10 min Tarek: there are other ways to do bidir-corouted lsps ... please note also a WG draft exists in ccamp robin: [...] Ross: is this draft specific to rsvp-te? if so we may need to differ this because of new WGs Lou: I think you are right part of this already exists, part of this is in scope of ccamp Adrian: do not delay work because of the re-org cross work with ccamp Nobo: which entity decides of actions and how they happen is missing from draft Robin: [...] draft-li-ccamp-role-based-automesh-02 Greg, 10 min Lou: presented in mpls because AD said implementors of 4972 might be in mpls George: need a good application binding for these mesh groups