IETF-75 L3VPN Working Group Minutes
Wednesday,
July 29, 2009.
1. Administrivia
-
No comments on agenda
-
No comments.
3. RT-Constrain
Lite for Provider Edge Routers
Marshall Eubank: You're not asking for any
contribution from this working group?
John Scudder: That’s correct, this is an
FYI as this is happening in IDR.
4. Extranet in BGP
Multicast VPN
Marshall Eubank: Are you looking to the WG
to resolve these options.
Rahul Aggarwal: Feedback is good. The
authors discussed this with service providers. We would intend to sort which
options are a MUST or a SHOULD, but there’s nothing to be resolved. Any comments?
Danny McPherson: No other comments? OK.
5. Multicast VPN
fast upstream failover
Danny McPherson: Will take the request to the mailing list.
6. Multicast in
MPLS/BGP IP VPN Configuration BGP Extended Communities
Mark Fine: Would like comments.
Marshall Eubank: Are you saying that
messages should be sent, for the system log?
Mark Fine: More of a question, if we fail
the discovery process.
Danny McPherson: Best if you send an email
to the list regarding these last few open issues you noted during your
presentation.
7. Use of Wildcard
in S-PMSI Auto-Discovery Routes
IJsbrand Wijnands: Wild card S-PMSI's are
already documented for some time. What is different in this draft?
Yakov Rekhter: Let's say we agree to
disagree on that. I sent specific comments back to Eric regarding his comments.
Please read those comments on the [mailing] list.
IJsbrand Wijnands: I read those. This draft
does seem to overlap and it does not reference Eric’s draft. If you think this
is different it would be good to state this.
Yakov Rekhter: Please read my comments.
It's clear.
IJsbrand Wijnands: I read those. It would
be good if you spell the differences out in the draft.
Yakov Rekhter: I do not think it's
necessary. With respect to encoding, in both this draft and draft-rosen, uses'
encoding that is specified in MBGP spec. They only difference is the use of 0/0
for wild cards. The use of using 0/0 for all match semantics predates
draft-rosen. There is nothing original in draft-rosen encoding.
Rahul Aggarwal: Comparing these documents
is mute. They have two different starting points. Please read Yaakov's comments.
Danny McPherson: Yakov, what’s your
intention for this draft currently?
Yakov Rekhter: We are not requesting this
become a WG document yet. We would appreciate comments.
Danny McPherson: If you have comments
please send them to the list.
8. AOB
8.1 Charter Discussion
Marshall Eubank: All the WG action items are done. The question is will we
close the group, or recharter?
Ross Callon: The considerations draft is a
working group document. At a minimum we should add this as a milestone. This is
easy to do, if the chairs, WG and AD think it’s a good idea we can add it as
milestone. If the chairs and the group feel there is more work beyond the
considerations draft. It seems to more that there could be more work on
multicast.
Danny McPherson: There is work. There are
things that need to be considered. We should revisit our milestones now that
the MVPN documents have been submitted to the IESG, that was a gate for an
official new work in the WG, now we can consider new work items.
Marshall Eubank: Is there anyone that does
not think the considerations document should not become a milestone? [no
objections from WG attendees] Ok, we will take this to the list.
Thomas Morin: There are new multicast
proposals for the WG, and one document that stems from requirements in the
Multicast VPN Requirements RFC. It seems to make sense to add this as a WG
item.
Danny & Marshall: Yes, that’s good. [To
WG audience] please submit suggestions for the new milestones and charter.