* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Rtgwg Status Pages

Routing Area Working Group (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston | 2004-Feb-19 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-113 rtgwg minutes


Minutes

minutes-113-rtgwg-00 minutes



          IETF 113 RTGWG
          
          Chairs: Jeff Tantsura (jefftant.ietf@gmail.com)
          Yingzhen Qu (yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com)
          
          WG Page: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/
          Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/session/rtgwg
          
          Meeting Administrivia and WG Update
          Chairs (10 mins)
          =============================================
          WG document Update
          
          YANG Models for Quality of Service (QoS)
          Aseem Choudhary (10 mins)
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model/
          No questions at the end of the presentation
          
          =============================================
          3. BIS on RFC 5798
          Acee Lindem (10 mins)
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/
          [Keyur Patel] Are you planning to do the same for the YANG model?
          [Acee] yes, once the RFC5798 BIS is further along
          [Grey Mirsky]I support the draft
          [Keyur Patel] We support this work. Would love to do interoperability
          [Acee]
          
          [Christian Hopps]I think it can run together
          [Acee]Yes
          [Jeff Tantsura]We will discuss with AD on where is the right place for
          the work.
          [Alvaro Retana]why not ask the group if RTGwg is the right place.
          [Jeff Tantsura]Please raise your hands: 58 raised hands
          
          =============================================
          A BoF on APN was held at IETF 111, and update was presented at IETF
          112. The team would like to present an update of their work and address
          open issues.
          4. Update of APN (20 mins)
          
          APN Problem Statement and Use Cases, Framework and Gap Analysis
          Gyan Mishra/Shuping Peng
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-apn-framework/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-apn-problem-statement-usecases/
          
          [Lar Eggert] I asked a Fundamental issue: when App makes request that
          Network can’t accomondate? It wasn’t addressed. So I am not sure of
          the statement of all issues being addressed.
          
          so what happens when a hop can’t satisfy the reqs? does the flow get
          rejected (and how), or do we fall back to best-effort, and how would an
          app then even benefit from apn?
          
          [Gyan Mishra] we will follow up with the answer.
          
          [Jeff Tantsura]This is the 3rd time this being presented. After discussing
          with AD, we felt routing is not the right place. So the option is to
          create another working group with clear milestone to work on it, and
          how we proceed after.
          [Alvaro] Just to clarify the request is for adoption of the framework,
          not the solution. if there are interests to work on those, it won’t
          be appropriate for RTG, but for another place to take the discussion.
          [Jeff Tantsura] Next step is for us to send email to the WG.
          
          [Jari Arkko]In general, I am quite interested in this Application
          related networking. but feel it is too ambitious to specify the user &
          application char into the network. If I remember right there were two
          major issues from the BoF, one was whetehr we need new encap or use
          existing ones? The other was several members felt that the mechanisms
          might be used for user identity or location identity etc., this may
          cause privacy issue. I’ll check the github whether these are solved.
          [Jari]IAB is working a document of collaboration between
          application and network. it would be a good exercise. I’d
          be happy to work on it with the community. The IAB document:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ht…raft-iab-path-signals-collaboration
          
          [Joel Halpern]The assumption of how application to work with network seems
          not the right, especially taking the privacy into consideration. Doesn’t
          seem to be the routing problem. Not just about fixing this framework.
          
          [Shuping from the Chat Panel]
          All the issues have been recorded in the Github and posted in the apn
          mailing list. They are open for review and comments.
          https://github.com/APN-Community/Issues/issues
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apn/?gbt=1&index=#
          
          ===============================================
          Presentation 5-8 are new individual drafts, looking for community
          feedbacks for future work.
          
          Semantic Address Based Instructive Routing for Satellite Network
          Lin Han (10 mins)
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lhan-satellite-instructive-routing/
          
          This topic was presented at IETF 112:
          Problems and Requirements of Satellite Constellation for Internet
          Satellite Semantic Addressing for Satellite Constellation
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lhan-satellite-semantic-addressing/
          [John Scudder] this is very interesting. To my knowledge, SAT network
          is proprierity network, doesn’t seem to need interoperability
          [Lin] We have identified the reasons for why need interoparability
          
          [Jeff]why RTGwg?
          [Lin]There is no WG . We just want to solicit feedbacks.
          
          Considerations for Protection of SRv6 Networks
          Yisong Liu (10 mins)
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-rtgwg-srv6-protection-considerations/
          [Jeffrey Haas]how you provision your BFD
          [Yisong]we have another draft in BFD WG to describe the BFD path provision
          
          [Terek Saad] what happens when the egress PE to CE link fails?
          BFD session won’t tell you the fault. Protection at the service level
          (e.g. BGP) will allow you to propagate such faul back to ingress and
          allow flip from primary service path to backup protection path.
          Such protection at transport layer is not sat service level.
          
          [Jeff Tantsura]Tarek: please send your question to the list.
          
          [Cheng Li] Thanks to the operator for presenting their issue.
          
          [Jeffrey Zhang] what is the difference from SR?
          [Jeff Tantsura] response is not there. Please send the question to
          the list.
          
          ===============================================
          7. HPCC++: Enhanced High Precision Congestion Control
          Rui Miao (10 mins)
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-miao-rtgwg-hpccplus/
          Presentation by Bakah on congestion control
          [lars Eggert] The congestion control part should be standardized, but in
          Transport area. The problem is that you can’t get congestion conditions,
          and it’s good if the network can provide such info.
          
          [Jeff Tantsura]This work is important for Data Center networks,
          and others.
          
          [Dean Bogdanovic]by the time congestion go to the source, it is alreay
          too old. Maybe we should have a mechanism to do pulling.
          
          Impact of DLTs on Provider Networks
          Dirk Trossen (10 mins)
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trossen-rtgwg-impact-of-dlts/
          [Nicola Rustignoli]how about security implication?
          
          ===============================================
          9. Continuing to Evolve Internet Routing Beyond ‘Mere’ Reachability
          Dirk Trossen (10 mins)
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trossen-rtgwg-routing-beyond-reachability/
          
          [Jeff Tantsura]this work is probably more suitable for IRTF.
          
          The following presentation is research focused, but considered relevant
          to RTGWG:
          10. Things researchers should think about when making proposals to
          introduce new approaches in Internet routing
          Adrian Farrel (15 mins)
          
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-irtf-introduction-to-semantic-routing/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-semantic-routing-survey/
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-irtf-sdn-and-semantic-routing/
          
          [Peng Liu]has this been discussed in COINrg?
          [Adrian] we have discussed with IRTF chair, was told that the work
          doesn’t belong to COINrg.
          
          [Jeffrey Hass] this is a useful work, wish you can continue.
          
          [Tarek Saad]I see resemblance with another work. I think it is useful.
          
          [Colin Perkins] The feedback I gave to Adrian is not to take the work
          to COINrg. maybe icnrg.
          
          [Jeff Tantsura] the work is really interesting, the name might be
          different. There are several presentations on this topic. We will talk
          with our AD to see what to do next and there might be interims.
          
          
          
          
          ##############################################################################
          ##          Chat History
          ##############################################################################
          
          Ron Bonica
          I know that it is a bit late for this comment, but doesn't this draft
          belong in the INT Area?
          06:37:00
          Adrian Farrel
          I'd be interested to know how this work could relate to service level YANG
          models especially related to "requesting QoS" in VPN+ and network slicing
          06:39:53
          Aseem Choudhary
          Hi Adrian, I can check service level YANG models and get back on this.
          06:51:26
          Jeffrey Haas
          Acee, no need to carry to mic, but it might be worthwhile mentioning
          to OpenConfig to update the small number of places they have similar
          terminology in need of update.
          06:51:37
          Lada
          06:52:24
          Lou Berger
          yes
          06:52:34
          Jari Arkko
          +1 for making the language changes!
          06:53:04
          Christian Hopps
          yes
          06:54:18
          Peter Hessler
          hum
          06:54:23
          Christian Hopps
          That was impressive number of hands
          06:55:20
          Jeff Tantsura
          thanks everyone for voting!
          06:57:41
          Jari Arkko
          Can someone post the link to the issues?
          07:01:17
          Dhruv Dhody
          https://github.com/APN-Community/Issues/issues
          07:02:05
          Jeff Tantsura
          thanks!
          07:02:15
          Shuping Peng
          hi Lars, your issue is the first one, and it was responsed but not closed
          by you. https://github.com/APN-Community/Issues/issues/1
          07:06:38
          it is open for you to reply and comment any time
          07:07:01
          Lars Eggert
          thanks, then i misremembered. so what happens when a hop can't satisfy
          the reqs? does the flow get rejected (and how), or do we fall back to
          best-effort, and how would an app then even benefit from apn?
          07:09:29
          Jari Arkko
          The IAB document:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ht…raft-iab-path-signals-collaboration
          07:12:21
          Shuping Peng
          @Jari, your questions on the two issues have been
          covered in the issue list, please check and comment
          https://github.com/APN-Community/Issues/issues
          07:15:01
          This is a generic framework, and open for solutions
          07:15:44
          @Lars Eggert, here is the response to your raised
          issue, if you have any comment please directly comment
          on it: APN-Github commented on 6 Dec 2021 As described in
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ht…draft-li-apn-framework-04#section-5,
          the APN requirements include APN Attribute Conveying Requirements
          and APN attribute Handling Requirements. In the APN attributes,
          the carrying of the APN parameters is optional as stated in
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-apn-header-00#section-3.
          The typical APN parameters are the network performance requirements such
          as bandwidth, latency, etc. If a hop cannot meet the APN requirements,
          which would mean that the hop cannot handle the APN attributes, then it
          will be up to the local configuration. We can explore more on this topic,
          but generally the flow needs to be forwarded without any interruption,
          probably in a default mode.
          07:17:52
          Lars Eggert
          thanks, i saw that. but saying "will be up to the local configuration"
          is basically saying that apps will not be able to rely on a predictable
          response from an apn network, i.e., they will need to be coded for a
          best effort network anyway
          07:19:17
          Adrian Farrel
          @lars Isn't that exactly the point. I think you are saying "This document
          doesn't work on the problem I want to work on," and it is OK to say that,
          but not to say "...and therefore this approach is not valid."
          07:20:30
          It's like DiffServ. You set the colour, but you don't get a guaranty
          from the network
          07:21:07
          Jeff Tantsura
          @Lars/Shuping - please take this to the RTGWG list, so there's a paper
          trail and people can react/comment
          07:21:50
          John Scudder
          "paper", heh
          07:22:04
          Jeff Tantsura
          :) muscle memory
          07:22:23
          Shuping Peng
          Thank you, Jeff.
          07:25:50
          The issues and the responses to the issues have all been recorded in the
          Github and posted in the apn mailing list apn@ietf.org, and separated
          emails have been directly sent to the issue raisers. People can always
          review and comment.
          07:25:59
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apn/?gbt=1&index=#
          07:26:12
          https://github.com/APN-Community/Issues/issues
          07:26:21
          Yingzhen Qu
          The draft is informational, is it intentional?
          07:26:43
          Lou Berger
          I think this is interesting work and worth continuing to discuss @IETF
          07:27:01
          Stewart Bryant
          +1
          07:27:21
          Lou Berger
          - no idea which WG though
          07:27:25
          Wesley Eddy
          I think it's great to continue discussing; I don't think there is industry
          demand for a standard (yet).
          07:27:47
          Stewart Bryant
          We have a big problem with advanced work that does not naturally fit in
          IETF as it is not yet reread for deployment but is rejected by IRTF who
          do not seem to like routing problems
          07:28:48
          Adrian Farrel
          Certainly seems like there should be a home for discussing the engineering
          issues that come up with satellite networks. This is rapidly moving
          beyond research.
          07:29:10
          Jeff Tantsura
          agree
          07:29:26
          Stewart Bryant
          However to remain relevant and we need to be working to where the ball
          will be, not just where it is today - this is a structural IETF problem
          that IESG and IAB need to work on
          07:30:13
          Cheng Li
          agree,satellite network seems very interesting, and we need a place
          for discussing it for sure
          07:30:32
          Boris Khasanov
          like specific WG?
          07:30:55
          Cheng Li
          yes, a WG may be good, IMHO
          07:31:18
          Lou Berger
          or an existing one, e.g., MANET
          07:31:34
          Adrian Farrel
          The standard/proprietary question is important, however. I think we have
          previous examples of the benefits of standards-based approaches even in
          proprietary networks.
          07:31:48
          Peter Hessler
          my previous job was working on designing a satellite network
          constellation, and standardization would have helped us address [redacted]
          issues
          07:32:09
          Stewart Bryant
          Not to minimise sat - there are other advanced RTG problems that are
          too big for RTGWG yet we have no good way to find a good venue for
          07:32:14
          Lou Berger
          the same point was raised when talking about IGP extension back when
          multi-vendor IGPs weren't a reality
          07:32:41
          Tony Li
          Is there anyone from Starlink or Kuiper at IETF????
          07:32:44
          Jeff Tantsura
          MANET might be a choice for the routing protocol
          07:32:49
          Jie Dong
          +1 to Adrian's point
          07:32:52
          Adrian Farrel
          However, some of the proposed re-purposing/overloading of addresses cuts
          into my slot at the end of this session.
          07:32:53
          Jeff Tantsura
          @tony - very good question
          07:33:42
          Stewart Bryant
          One of the difficulties with digital sat is that is is firmly in IATA
          territory, especially given recent applications
          07:34:46
          Jeffrey Haas
          The draft under discussion for bfd return path is
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-19
          07:39:40
          Although as best I understand the draft, that's for lsping for mpls,
          not srv6.
          07:40:13
          Greg Mirsky
          Good point, Jeff. Thank you. Will work on multi-part ICMP extension in
          support of directing the reverse direction of a BFD session
          07:41:34
          Jeffrey Haas
          Thanks, Greg. You've anticipated my suggestion for followup. Even
          though the work probably needs to be done in spring, the mpls chairs
          will probably want to be kept in the loop.
          07:42:21
          Cheng Li
          for SRv6,you can see this draft, it mainly
          describes the mechanism of using BSID for
          BFD.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-for-ubfd/
          07:42:59
          Jeff Tantsura
          @greg, specific question for now of at the end?
          07:44:19
          Jeffrey Haas
          Thank you, Cheng Li. This draft wasn't in the BFD WG's list of monitored
          drafts. I'd invite you to post to the rtg-bfd@ietf.org list to draw
          additional attention to your work.
          07:45:00
          Cheng Li
          thank you @jeff
          07:45:22
          @Jeffrey, LOL
          07:45:42
          Boris Khasanov
          @Cheng Li - interesting and important indeed!
          07:46:00
          Jeffrey Haas
          https://trac.ietf.org/trac/bfd/wiki…%20Group%20BFD-related%20Activities
          07:48:05
          Cheng Li
          thank you @boris
          07:52:20
          :)
          07:52:26
          Yisong Liu
          @jeff, we have submit the sbfd path consistency draft in BFD WG, Pls see
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dr…in-sbfd-path-consistency-over-srv6/
          07:54:44
          Christian Hopps
          hnm just lost them
          07:56:16
          Jeffrey Haas
          Yisong, thanks for that. Your draft had fallen into the wrong bit of my
          mailbox. I'll comment on it later.
          07:56:31
          Christian Hopps
          or am i the one that's lost..
          07:56:35
          John Scudder
          what are you talking about, chris?
          07:56:48
          Christian Hopps
          lost all audio and video from the room
          07:57:05
          John Scudder
          if you mean the a/v feed, it LGTM
          07:57:05
          Christian Hopps
          it's me thne
          07:57:12
          Yisong Liu
          @jeff, Thanks, very appreciate for your review and comments
          07:58:43
          Jeff Tantsura
          @greg - you are still in queue, do you have a question?
          08:02:32
          Jim Uttaro
          Is the pool bounded?
          08:03:06
          Jeffrey Haas
          Chairs should mute Greg.
          08:06:56
          Jeff Tantsura
          thanks jeff, done
          08:07:48
          @robin - please send your question/comment to the list
          08:20:33
          Stewart Bryant
          Re IRTF - not handles well at all
          
          Stewart Bryant
          Re IRTF - not handles well at all
          08:32:29
          IRTF needs to be more open to work in this area and more proactive
          08:33:13
          Thi sis not really ICN which has its own bagagge
          08:33:46
          Gyan Mishra
          Adrian, I think this work is very useful and I think IETF may have a
          home here RTGWG and maybe even TEAS
          08:33:50
          Haomian Zheng
          This work is useful, but may need to be broke into a few pieces to
          evaluate the impact on various protocols...
          Dhruv Dhody
          Thanks! Great presentations!
          08:34:49
          Stewart Bryant
          The problem with breaking it up is loss of critical mass and cross
          polination
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/rtgwg/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -