Last Modified: 2005-06-27
| Done | Submit documents from original MPLS effort to IESG | |
| Done | Framework for IP multicast over label-switched paths ready for advancement. | |
| Done | LDP fault tolerance specification ready for advancement to Proposed Standard. | |
| Done | Submit Definitions of Managed Objects for MultoiProtocol Label Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Specification for MPLS-specific recovery ready for advancement. | |
| Done | Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forward Equivalency Class-To-Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR), Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit the Traffic Engineering Link MIB to the IESG for as a Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit a specification on Encapsulations to carry MPLS over IP and GRE to the IESG for as a Proposed Standard | |
| Nov 03 | Together with CCAMP complete and establish the (G)MPLS change process | |
| Apr 04 | Advance MPLS Architecture and MPLS encapsulation to Draft Standard | |
| Apr 04 | Submit a specification on Soft Pre-emption of LSP Tunnels to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| Apr 04 | Submit specification on LSR Self Test to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| Jul 04 | Submit specification on LSP Ping to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| Jul 04 | Submit a document defining the scope, requirements, and issues to resolve for setup of P2MP TE LSPs (MPLS and GMPLS) | |
| Aug 04 | Submit an OAM Framework Document to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC | |
| Oct 04 | Advance 'Extension to RSVP for LSP Tunnels' to Draft Standard | |
| Nov 04 | Submit document(s) specifying protocol extensions, enhancements and mechanisms for setup of P2MP TE LSPs | |
| Nov 04 | Submit a BCP on MPLS load sharing to the IESG |
| RFC | Status | Title |
|---|---|---|
| RFC2702 | I | Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS |
| RFC3031 | PS | Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture |
| RFC3032 | PS | MPLS Label Stack Encoding |
| RFC3033 | PS | The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol |
| RFC3034 | PS | Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification |
| RFC3035 | PS | MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching |
| RFC3036 | PS | LDP Specification |
| RFC3037 | PS | LDP Applicability |
| RFC3038 | PS | VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP |
| RFC3063 | E | MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism |
| RFC3107 | PS | Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 |
| RFC3209 | PS | RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels |
| RFC3210 | I | Applicability Statement for Extensions to RSVP for LSP-Tunnels |
| RFC3212 | PS | Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP |
| RFC3213 | I | Applicability Statement for CR-LDP |
| RFC3214 | PS | LSP Modification Using CR-LDP |
| RFC3215 | I | LDP State Machine |
| RFC3270 | PS | MPLS Support of Differentiated Services |
| RFC3353 | I | Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS |
| RFC3443 | PS | Time to Live (TTL) Processing in MPLS Networks (Updates RFC 3032) |
| RFC3469 | I | Framework for MPLS-based Recovery |
| RFC3477 | PS | Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) |
| RFC3478 | PS | Graceful Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol |
| RFC3479 | PS | Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) |
| RFC3480 | PS | Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP (Constraint-Routing Label Distribution Protocol) |
| RFC3612 | I | Applicability Statement for Restart Mechanisms for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) |
| RFC3811 | Standard | Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management |
| RFC3812 | Standard | Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base |
| RFC3813 | Standard | Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR)Management Information Base |
| RFC3814 | Standard | Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forwarding Equivalence Class To Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (FEC-To-NHLFE)Management Information Base |
| RFC3815 | Standard | Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) |
| RFC3988 | E | Maximum Transmission Unit Signalling Extensions for the Label Distribution Protocol |
| RFC4023 | Standard | Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) |
| RFC4090 | Standard | Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels |
|
Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG (mpls)
MONDAY, August 1 at 10:30 - 12:30 =================================
CHAIRS: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
AGENDA: 1. ICMP interactions with MPLS =============================== http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/IDs/draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-02.txt Ron Ron gave a short background; ICMP as specified in RFC792, does not have a mechanism to report MPLS header information when a router fails to deliver a packet. The MPLS WG processed a draft on MPLS extensions (an object to report the MPLS header) for ICMP and requested that the draft should be published as an RFC on the Standards track. The IESG decided not to publish it because of "layer violation". However the draft has been widely implemented and is an integrated part of most MPLS implementations. The draft has now been resurrected <draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-03>, and the discussion is what work we need to undertake get it published. It was pointed out that we can't change anything in the technical details. This needs to be coordinated with the Internet Area, and one Suggestion is to move the parts that are not MPLS specific into a draft that the Internet Area will progress, while the MPLS specific parts goes through the MPLS working group. Ron will discuss this in the Internet Area meeting and we will await the outcome of this discussion. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/MPLS-Extensions-to-ICMP.ppt 2. Agenda bashing ================== Apart from moving the discussion on MPLS ICMP, to the top of the agenda to make possible for Ron to present the same topic in the Internet Area meeting (taking place at the same time), there were no other changes in agenda. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/mpls-agenda-paris.htm 3. Working group status ======================== Working group chairs reported on the status of working group documents: Parking Place ------------- We have a new "parking place", i.e. a web site that lists all documents that IESG have approved to be published as RFCs. The parking place is located at: http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/parking New RFCs from the MPLS working group since last meeting: ------------------------------------------------------- RFC 4090 Fast Reroute Extensions for RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels Working group documents in RFC-ed queue: ---------------------------------------- draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt (2002-04-11!) draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-06.txt draft-ietf-mpls-telink-mib-07.txt draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-null-02.txt draft-ietf-mpls-mgmt-overview-09.txt We have documents that have been stuck in the RFC-editors queue for some time. Actually the oldest document in the queue comes from the MPLS working group. Working group documents in parking place: ----------------------------------------- None Working group documents in IESG review: --------------------------------------- draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt (publication requested) draft-ietf-mpls-lc-if-mib-06.txt (new ID needed) draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-09.txt (new ID needed) draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-05.txt (ietf last call) draft-ietf-mpls-bgp-mpls-restart (IESG evaluation) draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes (IESG evaluation) MPLS working group drafts: -------------------------- draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test draft-ietf-mpls-oam-frmwk draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-06.txt (dated) draft-ietf-mpls-over-l2tpv3 draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-01.txt (dated) draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption 4. LDP to Draft Standards ========================== <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-01.txt> <draft-minei-ldp-operational-experience-01.txt> Ina draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-01.txt has gone through minor editing and is ready for WG last call. draft-minei-ldp-operational-experience-01.txt has been refreshed, it is a required informational reference for advancing the BIS draft. Please provide this draft with in depth review. One additional draft - protocol analysis - is also required (RFC 1264) to take LDP to draft standard to receive in depth review. The packages we need to prepare for taking LDP to Draft Standard also include <draft-thomas-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt>. Working group chairs will start the Working Last Call on the LDP document and poll the list for making the implementation survey and the operational experiences working group documents. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/ldp_to_standard_63.ppt 5. MPLS OAM ============ LSR Self Test ------------- <draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test> George This draft has been waiting for the LSP Ping to clear working last call. This has now happened and after minor changes it is ready go to working group last call. Slides: None P2MP LSP Ping ------------- <draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-02.txt> Adrian Since the meeting in Minneapolis a new work from Bill Fenner (new co-author) has been added and the objectives have been made more precise. Currently it is possible to ping one specific leaf or the whole tree. There was a good support for making it a working group document. Working group chairs will confirm this based on input on the working group mailing list. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/p2mp-lsp-ping-02-MPLS-WG.ppt <draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-00.txt> Tom The draft addresses issues for using the base LSP Ping in Inter AS contexts. Although there is a need to complete some sections of the draft the authors ask for feedback. One problem with using base LSP Ping is that the IP address found in the packet need not be routable if the forwarding failure occurs in an AS to which the AS where the packet originates does not announce the address that is found "under" the MPLS label. The indicated solution is to record the ASBR that the LSP Ping packet passes through, and if a failure occurs return the packet to the ASBR. The author will continue working on the document and fill in the un-finished sections. Authors request feedback from the working group. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping.ppt P2MP OAM requirements --------------------- draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-00.txt Tom The document addresses issues on how to detect and report data plane failures. Tom thinks that the document is a little rough; it needs a clarification and additional review. The P2MP OAM requirements should go into a document of its own and needs to address both diagnostic and periodic OAM. Input from Service Providers and careful review is important. Loa asked who has read and who supported this to become a working group document. Among those who have read the document there is a good support for making it a working group document. Needs to be confirmed on the list. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/P2MP-Req-v0.2.ppt 6. MPLS Multicast and MPLS P2MP ================================ <draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-02.txt> Rahul Rahul said that version -02 was recently published, according the authors it is not entirely ready for last called and a version -03 is planned. The working group should take the opportunity to read and comment. <draft-rosen-mpls-multicast-encaps-00.txt> <draft-raggarwa-mpls-upstream-label-00.txt> <draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-ldp-upstream-00.txt> Rahul The background is that there is some inconsistency between what RFC3032 says about multicast and unicast, and the actual requirements. The three drafts discuss separate aspects of this and propose mechanisms solutions to some of the problems. One of the mechanisms that are introduced is upstream label allocation (UAL). The drafts also concluded that it is not necessary to have one code point allocated for unicast and one for multicast, since this is given by context in the NHLFE. Conclusion is that there is some need to revisit how code points have been assigned. Instead of assigning one code point for unicast (8847) and one for multicast (8848), the draft suggests that the code points are used for downstream allocated (8847) and upstream allocated (8848). The concept of "Neighbor specific labels" is introduced since this is required for support of upstream assigned labels. With UAL - the context of a label is derived from the neighbor from whom the labeled packet was sent. The chairs asked how many had read the drafts and who thought they need to become working group drafts. Neither the amount of people who have read the drafts nor the support for making them working group drafts was conclusive. The working group chairs will take steps to initiate a discussion on the mailing list. Adrian pointed out that the LDP and RSVP-TE aspects are split out in separate drafts. The working group co-chairs strongly supported this. Authors agreed to this. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/ietf-63-mpls-upstream.ppt http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/ietf-63-mpls-upstream-rsvp-ldp.ppt MPLS Multicast -------------- <draft-leroux-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-01.txt> Jean-Louis Jean-Louis discussed the multicast requirements that are emerging in MPLS VPN applications. Extending LDP is a fairly low complexity route to support P2MP LSP setup requirements. The discussion brought up issues like why it is appropriate to have a leaf-initiated protocol in the p2mp case when this was not the case in the TE case. The benefits of shared trees vs. source based trees were discussed. George pointed out that some of the requirements are on the IGP routing rather than MPLS or LDP. Since this work is not captured in the working group milestones we need to ask the ADs if we can update the working group charter. Only after that we can accept this as a working group document. George asked for a sense of how many people were interested in doing this work in this WG. Many hands were raised. The working group chairs will bring this to the ADs. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/P2MP-LDP-REQ-06.ppt <draft-minei-mpls-ldp-p2mp-01.txt> Ina To extend LDP for p2mp is an attractive option since LDP is widely deployed. In these networks there might be a need for p2mp LSPs, but deploying RSVP-TE might be considered too much of a cost. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/ldp-p2mp.ppt <draft-wijnands-mpls-ldp-mcast-ext-00.txt> Ice This draft also proposes extensions to LDP for multicast, there seems to be enough overlap between two drafts to look into if there is a possibility to merge them into one. The author agreed to this. Slides: http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/mldp-ietf-paris.ppt <draft-yasukawa-mpls-ldp-mcast-over-p2mp-lsps-00.txt> Seisho Due to lack of time it was not possible to make this presentation. BGP Point to Multipoint LSP --------------------------- <draft-satoru-mpls-bgp-multipoint-01.txt> Satoru Matsushima Due to lack of time it was not possible to make this presentation. 6. Inter-Area LDP ================== <draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-00.txt> Bruno Due to lack of time it was not possible to make this presentation. 7. End of meeting |