Skip to main content

Minutes IETF104: bess
minutes-104-bess-00

Meeting Minutes BGP Enabled ServiceS (bess) WG
Title Minutes IETF104: bess
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-04-09

minutes-104-bess-00
1.  Working Group
Status                                                                      
Chairs                 20 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment : Ali to reply open questions after
IETF104. *draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming:  Authors need to respond to email
in list. *draft-ietf-service-chaining :major issue with draft. it can not be in
standard track. it would be spited. one would be informational & other one
would be standard.  New version to be posted
*draft-ietf-bess-bum-procedure-updates: shepherd  to review the document.
*draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover: Authors need to reply Jeffery comment.

RFC7432 Errata:
Ali: errata is simple.  certain section needs to be improved, and clarified.
and one more section need to be added. all of them would be covered would be in
7432bis. Ali to start bis after IETF.

2.
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-06                                                            
Patrice Brissette
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       draft updated from last IETF review and comment
        •       some cleanup of the draft
        •       normalize some portion of document to standard yang types .
        •       yang validator issue resolved.
        •       some feedback need to be addressed.
        •       BGP portion of the draft should be addressed.
        •       Keyur: BGP would be addressed in IDR. Keyur to work with
        authors to get it moving .

3.
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-03                                       
Patrice Brissette
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       new changed done to address comment on list & last IETF.
        •       ready for adoption call.
        •       Jorge: backwards compatibility section is misleading.
        •       Luc: authors would work on this section, as it is confusing
        section.

4.
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02                                               
Patrice Brissette      10 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       addressed comments from list.
        •       Jorge: suggestion would be to use capability flag. so that it
        can be used with other DF type. •       Luc: Authors would like to use
        capability.

5.
draft-sajassi-bess-secure-evpn-01                                                  
Ali Sajassi            10 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       modified from last IETF, to give more detail.
        •       one more update is expected, post which we would need WG
        •       Keyur: 3 proposal going on between different WG. It uses tunnel
        Encap of authored by me. •       Keyur:  keys are exchanged over
        unreliable. •       Ali: it is not being sent over unreliable tunnel.
        it is already reliable tunnel, once BGP has setup the tunnel using
        IPsec tunnel, use it to exchange the key. •       Keyur: to send more
        detail over email. Can you protect it to be leaked to different AS. •  
            Ali: It would be worked on. •       chair: what’s position about
        discussion with other authors of different draft. •       Ali :
        conclusion was to move ahead with this draft as solution & one more
        draft as use case draft.  There seems to be some misunderstanding. Ali
        to sync up with other authors & resolve the issue. •       Linda:  all
        controller dictated solution should be discussed at one place. IPsec
        has missed some of the things in this document. •       Discussion have
        to happen outside. •       Leo: are they going into sub-tlv . 5566 have
        been looked. there was issue with security area.  it took long time to
        move forward.  Key exchange over BGP was not allowed. •       Ali:
        Already looked at it.  There are already discussion going on .  There
        would be more discussion in list. •       Martin: consider the comments
        to move forward. •       Ali : to discuss with security group.

6.
draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast-02                                               
Jeffrey Zhang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       There were some small modification made.
        •       this would be single document, it was merged and another
        document would not be worked on any more. •       document is ready to
        adoption call. •       Chair: any vendor interested. •       Jim : Yes

7. draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-segmented-forwarding-00         Jeffrey Zhang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       its consolidation of multiple different drafts
        •       Ali:  Assumption is service layer MPLS. what if one area is
        doing MPLS & other is doing VxLAN •       Jeffery: it would be added to
        this draft. •       Ali: Can IP forwarding be made as common
        denominators. IP forwarding heavy statement would be platform
        dependent. •       Jeffery : To discuss offline.  it would be good to
        document all the options and let vendor choose which ever they want.
        there is no default option.

8. draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements-00          Jeffrey
Zhang          25 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       authors think document is ready.
        •       seeking WG to provide comment.

9.
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-lsoe-00                                                 
Neeraj malhotra        10 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       deterministic convergence procedure defined in draft
        •        it includes use case also

10. draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw-00                                       
Satya mohanty           5 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        •       new draft, would need working group  feedback to move forward.
11.
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00                                             
Gaurav Dawra            10 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        •       6 revision have been presented in IDR
        •       document is matured.
        •       multiple deployment exist.
        •       Chair: its been first time presented here,
        •       Aldrin:  implementation is good. what would happen if protocol
        changes substantially. •       Gaurav: we would handle with respect to
        change. •       Aldrin: if WG document changes significantly, will we
        be allowed to do this. •       Jorge: it’s not ready for WG adoption.
        there is discussion needed in WG . it breaks some of the stuff which is
        done in EVPN. it breaks the packing. BGP encapsulations also is broken.
        •       Satoru  Softbank: it has been deployed this document in field.
        it would not effect any 7432. if WG possibility to change the document,
        it means it might change the whole SR procedure.  it uses the existing
        standard. •       chair : we need to have discussion in WG. •      
        Gaurav: it has been socialized to different vendors.:
12. draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized-ir-01                       Wen Lin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        •       Authors would like to have WG adoption call
13. draft-rbickhart-evpn-ip-mac-proxy-adv-00                               Wen
Lin                10 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        •       Ali: same case exist for pure L2 case. If MAC get hashed to
        only one of the PE.  We do it using aliasing. this is alternate methods
        of achieving same thing. there was already draft which was written 2
        years back. •       Wen:  advantage of using proxy it to remove network
        churn. it would help to interop. •       Ali: already have written pros
        & cons in other draft. •       Chairs: Discussion have to happen
        offline.

14. draft-nr-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-00                                   
Jorge Rabadan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feedback expected from WG
15. draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-composite-tunnel-00             Jorge
Rabadan          10 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   * New draft presented in this IETF. comments expected from WG

16. draft-liu-bess-evpn-mcast-bw-quantity-df-election-00         Michael
McBride         5 min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ali: There is already draft
Jeff: it would not work in EBGP
Ali: Please review other draft.
17.
draft-zwm-bess-es-failover-00                                                  
Sandy                   5 min Ali:  what if there is congestion , if message
gets lost. it might lead to duplicate traffic.
         what if there is unequal bandwidth , will there be new session for BFD.
         it need to be addressed.
Sandy: there can by many ways to build session.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------