Done | | Submit L3 VPN Requirements Document to IESG for publication
as Info |
Done | | Submit Generic Requirements Document to IESG for
publication as Info |
Done | | Submit L3 VPN Framework Document to IESG for publication as
Info |
Dec 03 | | Submit VPN Security Analysis to IESG for publication as
Info (draft-fang-ppvpn-security-framework-00) |
Dec 03 | | Submit BGP/MPLS VPNs specification and AS to IESG for
publication as PS (draft-ietf-ppvpn-rfc2547bis-03,
draft-ietf-ppvpn-as2547-01) |
Dec 03 | | Submit CE-based specification and AS to IESG for
publication as PS (draft-ietf-ppvpn-ce-based-03,
draft-declercq-ppvpn-ce-based-sol-00,
draft-declercq-ppvpn-ce-based-as-01) |
Dec 03 | | Submit Virtual Router specification and AS to IESG for
publication as PS (draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpn-vr-03,
draft-ietf-ppvpn-as-vr-01) |
Jan 04 | | Submit VPN MIB Textual Conventions to IESG for publication
as PS (draft-ietf-ppvpn-tc-mib-02) |
Jan 04 | | Submit MPLS/BGP VPN MIB to IESG for publication as PS
(draft-ietf-ppvpn-mpls-vpn-mib-05) |
Jan 04 | | Submit VR MIB to IESG for publication as PS
(draft-ietf-ppvpn-vr-mib-04) |
Jan 04 | | Submit BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for publication
as PS (draft-ietf-ppvpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt) |
Mar 04 | | Submit specification of using IPSEC for PE-PE encapsulation
in BGP/MPLS VPNs to IESG for publication as PS
(draft-ietf-ppvpn-ipsec-2547-03) |
Mar 04 | | Submit specification of using GRE for PE-PE encapsulation
in BGP/MPLS VPNs to IESG for publication as PS
(draft-ietf-ppvpn-gre-ip-2547-02) |
Mar 04 | | Submit specification of CE Route Authentication to IESG for
publication as PS (draft-ietf-ppvpn-l3vpn-auth-03) |
Mar 04 | | Submit specification of OSPF as the PE/CE Protocol in
BGP/MPLS VPNs for publication
(draft-rosen-vpns-ospf-bgp-mpls-06.txt) |
End.L3 PPVPN WG Minutes - Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk)
Ross Callon and Ron Bonica presiding.
Alex Zinin - Why split the WG?
o PPVPN will be shut down after draft relocation
o Thomas Narten will be responsible AD for both L2VPN & L3VPN
o Rick Wilder, Loa Andersson & Vach Kompella are L2VPN Chairs
o Rick Wilder, Ross Callon & Ron Bonica are L3VPN Chairs
o Subscribe to new mailing lists, ppvpn@ will be closed
o Security TA TBD
o see slides
Ross introduced Thomas Narten as AD
Thomas said:
- other AD is Margaret Wasserman who is a new AD
- WG is in Internet Area because that's where it belongs!
Ron Bonica - L3 VPN Charter
- charter is on line
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/l3vpn-charter.html)
- see slides
- WG will be limited to requirements and applications, NOT new
protocols
Ross Callon - Draft status
- see slides
Common documents:
Luyuan Fang
Security Framework for Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks
draft-fang-ppvpn-security-framework-01.txt
- see slides
* Dave McDyson
- objective is to identify aproaches, so support draft
- analysis is a better title than framework
- draft has tensions between L2 and L3
* Ron
- its important
- propose adopt as WG
- comments in two weeks (on list)
- Luyuan to collect feed back from other sources
- respin in two weeks or so (after first two weeks)
- then WG last call
* ??
- should section 8 have full statement or templates?
- timeframe implies templates
- he's OK with this
- check everyone OK with multiple drafts as consequence
* Ron
- ack on all points
* Ross (from later in meeting)
- sense of the room for WG doc
- no oposition, reasonable support
- consensus declared
Thomas Nadeau
Framework for PPVPN Operation and Management
draft-yacine-ppvpn-mgt-frwk-01.txt
- see slides
* Ross
- Alex advises that its OK to decide on whether this is a WG document
- If a charter update would be needed then we can ask the IESG post facto
for a charter update
- sense of the room for WG doc
- no oposition, reasonable support
- consensus declared
Rahul Aggarwal
Signaling Tunnel Encapsulation/Deencapsulation Capabilities
draft-raggarwa-ppvpn-tunnel-encap-sig-01.txt
- see slides
* Alex Zinin
- recall discuss on list about protocol specific extensions
- should go to WG that owns protocol after L3 PPVPN makes
suggestions and checks meets requirements
- in this case IDR WG
* Rahul
- yes
* Alex
- don't make WG doc
- get positive feedback from Wg first
- then go to IDR
- split draft if needed for other protocols
* Rahul
- what is the correct procedure?
* Alex
- let's not spend time on procedures now
- current procedure is that protocol extensions are done in the WG that
owns the protocol
* Rahul
- let's guage interest
* Alex
- you don't have doc that can be a WG doc
* Thomas Narten
- premature to ask about WG doc
- ask rather is there interest in problem
* Ross
- how many read? :fair number
- appropriate approach that should be considered? :clear support, none
against
L3 documents :
Pedro Marques
Constrained VPN route distribution
draft-marques-ppvpn-rt-constrain-00.txt
- see slides
* ???
- for inter-AS how relate to the two different inter-AS methods
* Pedro
- it applies to B & C
* Ross
- whos' read : modest
- who should be concenred : modest v. 1
- who thinks WG doc : modest
* Pedro
- IDR or here
* Yakov
- BGP already has multiprotocol support
- this spec uses what already exists
* Pedro
- draft contains no mods to existing standards
* Thomas Narten
- but does it change the interpretation?
* Pedro
- no, but defines new bits
* Thomas
- huh? no change to existing standards but changes bits on the wire?
* Dave
- disagree, thinks changes the way BGP operates
* ???
- should be in IDR including the problem solution
* Ross
- do it on both lists
* P
- is this something the WG wnats a soln for
- is mechanism considered as a solution by this WG
- 2547 is not done in IDR
* Ron
- consensus on problem being worth inspection
* George Swallow
- scalability is always a problem and must be considered
- if this is a solution then this is good
* Luyuan Fang
- there is a real problem : inter-AS
Pedro Marques
RFC2547bis networks using internal BGP as PE-CE protocol
draft-marques-ppvpn-ibgp-00.txt
- read the slide
* Ron (individual)
- CE device peering using your AS, could it peer elsewhere using your AS
number?
* Pedro
- cust n/w has its own AS number
- never sees provider n/w AS number
- doesn't even know about it
- this is the point
* Joel
- two likely scenarios
1. this is a good general tool so go to IDR
2. IDR says this is a bad idea in which case this WG should not do it
- In other words we shouldn't do it in either case
- This is too close to the core working of BGP for us to do
* Pedro
- begs to differ
- this is 2547 only
- IDR WG does not have expertise in this area
- we are not modifying any rules at all
* ???
- Why run IGP with domain we don't control?
- Takes away purpose of outsourcing VPN to the carrier
* Pedro
- there is no assumption that IGP is being run
- unless routers are behind CE, no IGP used
* Ross
- if this is useful for VPNs is for this WG
- BGP manipulation technique is for IDR
* Alex
- ack
Lede Feng (taken out of order)
ISIS as the PE/CE Protocol in BGP/MPLS VPNs
draft-sheng-ppvpn-isis-bgp-mpls-00.txt
- read the slides
* Hans Breddler
- sub-TLV to TLV 135: any plan to handle admin tag or down to single
prefix?
* Lede
- we need to extend BGP to support extensions
* Hans
- does it make sense to address small metrics at the moment?
- just keep going with existing?
* Danny McPherson
- are people doing it, or is it to complete the set of protocols?
* Lede
- Yes, China Telecom is requesting this
* Ron
- who read? : small
- any other customers? : no response
- should we pursue the draft? : none
- we will check on list
Gargi Nalawade
IPv4-Tunnel SAFI
draft-nalawade-kapoor-tunnel-safi-00.txt
- read the slides
* ???
- most VPN use MPLS, so why do we need this?
- how do you deal with misconfiguration?
* Gargi
- tunnel creation is triggered, this just signals relation with end
points
- so no question of misconfig
* ???
- saves very little in config effort
* Gargi
- disagree
- just config one tunnel and flood it
- implementation and deployment details
* Ross
- read? : modest
- problem here that doc is trying to solve (general of setting up
tunnels, this solves specific part of problem)
* Gargi
- no, not just IP tunneling
* Ross
- separate issue of setting up tunnels from determining routes?
* Ross
- is this a problem that we want to work on?
* ???
- this is the same problem as Rahoul presented
* Ross
- complimentary of oposed solns?
* Rahoul
- problems are similar
- earlier draft is PPVPN perspective
- this is more directed to solution
???
- there is some overlap, just different perspectives
* Gargi
- authors of both drafts are talking
- there are some differences
* Rahoul
- there is a distinction between problem and solution
- this draft is a solution without a problem statement
* Ron
- please work together for a problem statement for a superset
* Rahoul
- we already have agreement
Ross
- previously suggested that there was more than one
authentication draft
- this is not so
|