Minutes IETF102: spring
minutes-102-spring-00

SPRING WG - Source Packet Routing in Networking

        Monday, July 16, 2018
        13:30-15:30                        Monday Afternoon session I
        Room:    Duluth
 ======================================================
Chairs:  Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
         Rob Shakir     <robjs@google.com>

o Administrativia
Chairs
- Note Well
- Scribe
- Blue Sheets
- Document Status                        15        minutes        13:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=30

Rob: new charter need to focus on deployability of SR, the operational aspects
of deploying SR. Rob: due to lack of tight agenda, the SR-TE-policy will be
discussed in IDR WG, multicast draft in PIM. Jeff T: Multicast draft will also
be discussed in RTGwg

o SR YANG model
draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-09.txt

slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=521
Yingzhen                5 minutes                13:45

It has been 2 years since we first presented it. It is very stable now.
Main point: SR Global Block for entire network configuration; Maxi SID;
notification Define a Transport Type at the very beginning. We think the
feature wise is complete. If you have any concern, please voice. we think it is
ready for WGLC

discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=757

Bruno: we will Yang doctor review, then start the WGLC.

[D Jain Cisco] will common types for SR be defined in this module or elsewhere?
[A] Two models are defined within this draft, one of which defines the common
types. [Jeff T] the initial idea to have base here and reference other YANG
models. There are many others being developed so far. [A] Encourage authors of
other YANG models to reference this one if they need common types for SR.

(Chairs note - t=0, 13:45)
o SR policy
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=900
Ketan                10 minutes                13:50

Major change: the document is re-organized, focus on Core SR policy. Others are
moved to other documents.

discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=1190

[Andrew Stone Nokia] There is a BGP extension for SR-TE policy. Any extension
for PCEP? [Ketan] Partially covered in BGP [Dhruv Huawei] we have a document
covered in PCE WG. I can send the link [Harish Sitaraman Juniper] There are
symbolic names for SR-TE policy. Any extension for the BGP SR-TE draft? [Ketan]
the latest version of BGP has that included [Harish] the draft said the name
must not be used as policy identification. [Ketan] Information model has an
index.  Name is not unique. [Sue Hares] are you going to harmonize BGP and PCEP
extension? we should follow up afterwards. (note: 8:10)

draft-filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations

slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=1399

Objective of the document is to document implementation aspects and which WG
should cover what aspects Asking for WG adoption.

discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=1740

[Rob] Few challenges with adopting this draft. A lot are implementations
specific e.g. splitting functionality across software modules, some of which
may be implementation specific. What constitute Traffic Steering, what is
traffic policy. Given that this document discuss path computation we need
discussion with TEAS. We need to go through these discussions before we can
kick of the adoption call.

[A] Some part are conceptual, they don't have to be implemented as written.
[Rob] May be editorial, some editorial restructuring may help.

(note 16:50)
o NSH and Segment Routing Integration for Service Function Chaining (SFC)

slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=1914

draft-guichard-sfc-nsh-sr
Jim Guichard                10 minutes                14:00

The purpose of the draft to clarify the confusion people think that SFC might
be competing with SR. The truth is NOT. SFC is complimentary to SPRING. SFC NSH
 Header can work with any transport technology. NSH can integrate with SR for
identifying flow. Using NSH to identify which context.

discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=2330

[Andrew D Nokia] we would like people to look at this carefully. SFC was done
independently from transport layer. The more you put service into transport
layer, the messier it gets. I support this separation proposed by the draft.

(25:03)
o Service Programming with Segment Routing
draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming-00
François Clad                5 minutes                14:10

slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=2415

Service are integrated with SR policies.

discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=2766

Bruno: are you going to utilize existing way to carry the metadata or specify a
new way to carry metadata? Francois: we plan to create a new metadata TLV.

Joe Harlpern: you are avoiding interoperability discussion. we have SFC over
MPLS, SFC over IPv6. What you are doing is reinventing entire new thing. SR is
not new to invent completely new Francois: NSH needs a lot of state in the
network Joe Halpern: can you name a few "state"? yes there are trade-off, but
we can't reinvent a new TLV for every corner case Jim Guichard: Let's use the
technology that we have developed, rather than reinvent everything. Let's
collaborate, lets' not reinvent it. Zafar Ali: if we are afraid of touching
anything new, then we can't do anything. What is wrong to improve to remove
layers in the network? Andrew D Nokia: please don't make statement on STATE.
NSH is for services, SR for transport. It's not because we can make it simpler
for a simpler use case, that we need to develop a new solution. Whole picture
would be more complex both for vendors and operators.

Rob: cutting the line.

[Jabber: Greg] how you envision separation of Transport OAM and Service OAM?
[A] Would use the same solution to check the transport and the service. There
is another draft on OAM, I will check if this is covered. Rob, Bruno: continue
the talk offline.

(40:00)
o SRv6 Network Programming
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-05
Pablo Camarillo                10 minutes                14:15

Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=3340

Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=3720

Ron Bonica (Juniper): why is it necessary to re-encode VPN MPLS label?
why need to move the VPN info into the IP destination address?
Darren (Cisco):
it is about the IPv6 SR data plane vs MPLS data plane.
to be answered in text [?]
Joel Halpern: more confused about the Transit SIDs.
[A] disagreement with your reading of the draft
Uma: related draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane. SRv6 can be used for underlay,
when you remove TE tunnel. Draft requires LTE network to rely on IPv6 addresses
while currnet deployement may use MPLS or IPv4 transport. GTP separation is not
good.

o Node Protection for SR-TE Paths
draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths
Chris Bowers                10 minutes                14:25

Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=4090

Remotely presented.

Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=4900

Bruno: which WG (RTGWG or SPRING)?
Chris: more appropriate in SPRING. The need to get to SR-TE path
Stewart: do you need to dynamically compute the path?
Chris: Protection is computed ahead of time
Stewart: it conflicts with the SPRING principle of intermediate nodes not
knowing the state. Chris: you have to violate somewhat for the second label

(1h07)
o Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
draft-iqbal-spring-mpls-ping-algo-00
Faisal                8 minutes                14:35

Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=5020

no questions

(1h12)
o Segment routing for SD-WAN paths over hybrid networks
draft-dunbar-sr-sdwan-over-hybrid-networks-01
Linda Dunbar                6 minutes        14:43

Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=5240

Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=5913

Jeff Tantsura: there is management element in there. need to talk to Ignas to
see which WG needs to be discussed [Insufficient time for Robin's question - to
the list]

o SR For SDWAN: VPN with Underlay SLA
draft-dukes-spring-sr-for-sdwan-00
Darren Dukes                6 minutes                14:49

Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=5948

Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=6200

Darren: Will discuss with Linda on how to integrate the two drafts on SD-WAN
tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday at 3:30pm at IETF registration) Daniel (Bell
Canada): some similarities with the previous draft, I guess you will need to
collaborate both draft together. Darren: Absolutely.

o Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks
with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6) draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-00 Zafar Ali             
  10 minutes                14:55

Slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=6256

Discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=6735

Jabbar (Greg): purpose and how to use the time-stamp.
Zafar: timestamp is implementation dependent; as soon as possible on the
ingress line card.

Ron Bonica: (SRv6 Overlay Traceroute slide) This page includes other routing
header types. It might be useful to make it generatic by moving the O-bit out
of the SRH to a destination option. A: easier to get the flag from the same
header; behavior specific to the SR SID.

o Segment Routing Traffic Accounting Counters
draft-filsfils-spring-sr-traffic-counters-00
Zafar Ali                10 minutes                15:05

Bruno:
Lack of time for this presentation
Please summarize the 2 slides on the mailing list

Zafar: We like to ask for WG adoption
Bruno: ok, request can be also be part of the email

o Performance Measurement in Segment Routing Networks
 SR-MPLS:  draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm-01
 SRv6:     draft-ali-spring-srv6-pm-02
 UDP Path for In-band Performance Measurement draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-01
Rakesh Gandhi / Zafar Ali                10 minutes                15:15

Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKC14C4Gj4&t=7027

No time for questions.

Speaker Shuffling Time                5 minutes

Total                120 minutes                15:30