Minutes IETF105: 6man
minutes-105-6man-00
| Meeting Minutes | IPv6 Maintenance (6man) WG | |
|---|---|---|
| Date and time | 2019-07-25 19:50 | |
| Title | Minutes IETF105: 6man | |
| State | Active | |
| Other versions | plain text | |
| Last updated | 2019-07-31 |
minutes-105-6man-00
6MAN Working Group - Montreal IETF Meeting Tuesday, 23 July 2019, Afternoon Session III, 17:10-18:10, Laurier Thursday, 25 July 2019, Afternoon Session II, 15:50-1720, Duluth Chairs: Bob Hinden, Ole Trøan Minute taker: Barbara Stark (both sessions) Jabber Scribe: Shuping Peng (both sessions) Jabber Room: 6man@jabber.ietf.org Meetecho: https://www.meetecho.com/ietf105/6man ====================== Agenda ====================== Agenda - 23 July 2019 Introduction, Agenda Bashing, Document Status, Chairs, 5 min. Working Group Drafts Area Director Comments on "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header , Suresh Krishnan / Darren Dukes, 15 min. ICMPv6 errors for discarding packets due to processing limits, draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits , Tom Herbert, 15 min. Active Individual Drafts Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option, draft-hinden-6man-mtu-option , Gorry Fairhurst / Bob Hinden, 15 min. New Individual Drafts (as time allows) IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks, draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless , Pascal Thubert, 5 min. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Unicast Lookup, draft-thubert-6lo-unicast-lookup , Pascal Thubert, 5 min. Agenda - 25 July 2019 Introduction, Agenda Bashing, Chairs, 5 min. Working Group Drafts RFC8200 Fragmentation Errata, RFC8200 Errata , Bob Hinden, 15 min. Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64 , Jen Linkova, 15 min. Active Individual Drafts Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic, draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675 , Gorry Fairhurst, 10 min. SRV6+ Overview and Motivation, Ron Bonica, 15 min. IPv6 Support for Segment Routing: SRv6+, draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus The IPv6 Compressed Routing Header (CRH), draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr The Per-Path Service Instruction (PPSI) Option, draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt The Per-Segment Service Instruction (PSSI) Option draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt New Individual Drafts (as time allows) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6), draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam , Zafar Ali, 5 min. Service-aware IPv6 Network, draft-li-6man-service-aware-ipv6-network , Zhenbin Li, 5 min. Consideration of IPv6 Encapsulation for SFC and IFIT, draft-li-6man-ipv6-sfc-ifit , Shuping Peng, 5 min. Encapsulation of Path Segment in SRv6, draft-li-6man-srv6-path-segment-encap , Cheng Li, 5 min. Segment Routing Header encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data, draft-ali-spring-ioam-srv6 , Zafar Ali, 5 min. DetNet SRv6 Data Plane Encapsulation, draft-geng-detnet-dp-sol-srv6 , Xuesong Geng, 5 min. ========================= Minutes (Tuesday, July 23) ========================= Introduction, Agenda Bashing, Document Status https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-6man-sessb-introduction-agenda-bashing-document-status-02 On document status slide... Jen Linkova: Not happy with outcome of IPv6 only flag draft. Suresh Krishnan: There has been a lot of feedback. Not everyone was happy with the outcome. ---------------- IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) Darren Dukes presented, walking through proposed changes to resolve IESG comments (no slides presented summary of IESG comments and proposed resolutions). Suresh: <commented on wording of resolution to one of the issues> After Darren finished... Suresh: Send these to the list and I'll will start the IETF last call. ----------------- ICMPv6 errors for discarding packets due to processing limits Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-6man-sessb-icmpv6-errors-for-discarding-packets-due-to-processing-limits-00 Presented by Tom Herbert Other ICMPv6 changes slide... Suresh: Question about advisability of problem code. Tom: I think you're saying this is outside the bounds of normal behavior. We aren't advocating but it's important to acknowledge. Suresh: That's fine, but just provide a little more info about it. Ole: Tom: Implementation slide... Suresh: One thing you can do is go ahead and lock down the errors. Tom: OK Ole: How many people are willing to review as part of WGLC? Six people said they would review. ACTION: Chairs will start a working group last call. ------------------ Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-6man-sessb-ipv6-minimum-path-mtu-hop-by-hop-option-02 Presented by Bob Hinden and Gorry Fairhurst Tim Shepard: The box looking at these headers might not know about the bottleneck. Just so long as you're aware. Gorry: If you do things in certain ways, it will work. Bob: We don't expect this to be magic. We hope it will be useful in some cases. We need feedback. Tom Herbert: I like the idea of doing these experiments over the Internet. Can we make it ongoing to measure status of extension headers over the Internet? Gorry: Can we make this about useful headers? Jen Linkova: I like this, but we'll see how useful it is. Joel Jaeggli: Maybe this will work on some architectures? I'm not sure someone can write a hop-by-hop test that will work everywhere. Geoff Huston: We're getting some high failure rates because of extension headers. Not sure why. We'll try to publish some statistics more regularly. Dave Thaler: My understanding of what you draft is saying: If you don't understand it, pass it on. Gorry: It only works if... Dave: Right. It's an upper bound. What are you going to use this for? Gorry: PL Dave: Packetization layer Erik Kline: Bob: We also said something like that. Ole: People in favor of making this a WG draft, please hum now? <some humming> Violently opposed? <no audible humming> OK, it sounds like there is support in favor of adopting the draft. ACTION: Chair will confirm adoption of draft on mailing list. ----------------- IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-6man-sessb-draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-01 Presented by Pascal Thubert Lorenzo Colitti: This draft isn't really trying to start new work. I think it's incomplete. ----------------- IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Unicast Lookup Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-6man-sessb-draft-thubert-6lo-unicast-lookup-00 Presented by Pascal Thubert ----------------- Ole: We will reconvene on Thursday. Please discuss Pascal's questions (regarding generalizing draft and moving to 6man) on the list. ========================= Thursday, July 25, 2019 ========================= Introduction, Agenda Bashing, Document Status Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessb-introduction-agenda-bashing-document-status/05/ Ole mentioned the new RFC formats. There was much rejoicing when he said he could write his surname without slashes. ------------------ IPv6 RFC8200 Fragmentation Errata Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessa-ipv6-rfc8200-fragmentation-errata/00/ Presented by Bob Hinden Joel Halpern: This [on slide 12] seems like a sensible approach, but I'm uncomfortable with publishing that thing that appears as an errata. Bob: See next slide. [slide 13] Joel: Ah! OK. Suresh Krishnan: [As AD] I like the option of approving errata and providing text. It seems like less overhead. Ole: The problem is there seems to be no direct correlation between the 3 pointing to a fix. Suresh: Other things can proceed in parallel. I don't want to wait for a year. Keep this verify and then people can go to the RFC page and see it as verified. Ole: OK. So we'll take further discussion to list. Bob: Not recommended to do 8200bis. Suresh: Thank you. Bob: Next step is to send out text to list -- original, proposed, and diff. Once there is agreement, Suresh can process the errata. Ole: It would be great if 2 different people could implement to verify text. ACTION: Send proposed text to the list. ------------------ Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessa-discovering-pref64-in-router-advertisements/01/ Presented by Jen Linkova Ole: Who is willing to review as part of WGLC? Five people volunteered. OK, we will start WGLC. ACTION: Chairs will start working group last call on mailing list. ------------------ Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessa-change-status-of-rfc-2675-to-historic/00/ Presented by Gorry Fairhurst Slide 5 (Questions for 6man) <... and there was a stampede to get to the microphone> Brian Carpenter: I don't buy the argument. If you don't support it you don't have to do anything. I don't see why it's damaging to leave it alone. But there are people who want to do high packet transfer. Bob Hinden: [not as chair] Is a problem that there are no links you can really test this with? Gorry: I wouldn't want to bet that it worked. The code is not exercised. Bob: Code that is not used doesn't get better. Ron Bonica: I recommend moving to historic. There is no need to send a packet that long. Deprecating something we don't use is a good thing. Ole: [not as chair] I would second Brian's point. When we tried to implement in Cisco it was pointed out we had no buffers that could support. Gorry: We do have options to recommend only using in controlled environments. Ole: You could imagine someone wanting to do certain things with it. Lorenzo Colitti: The question is, can we un-historicize it if we ever find it is useful? I don't see using it happening in the next 20 years, but maybe after that? How much effort is it to make it historic? Brian: Quoting from text that indicates when jumbo frame option can be used and that it need not be implemented or understood. I don't understand why anyone would bother to implement it. I don't understand why we need to do anything, because no one will implement. Erik Kline: Even though there might not be implementation support, there might be loopback. Gorry: Maybe David Lamparter: I would rather have it moved to historic. Suresh: [no hat] I've seen things that could potentially use this. I'd say let it be. If there's an implementation, then maybe they can fix it. Suresh: [AD hat] Moving to historic is not a problem. I know the process. So if the WG wants it done, I'll get it done. Gorry: There is a problem with people being told they have to support it. Brian: I would support a short document that would update the RFC that says "This is what I mean, and don't do it." Bob: Brian, are you willing to co-author? Brian: I'll see about that. [Chairs took that as a yes that Brian will write a short document clarifying state of Jumbograms. ------------------ IPv6 Support for Segment Routing: SRv6+ Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessa-ipv6-support-for-segment-routing-srv6/00/ Presented by Ron Bonica Bob: This was also presented to spring WG. There didn't seem like a lot of enthusiasm to take this on in Spring. Ron: There was discussion. Suresh: [as AD] What I said in spring -- what we did with SRH is what I'd like to do with this. Act like a gatekeeper. Martin Vigoureux: [Routing AD] You should expect a message from the spring chairs. Bob: Subscribe to the spring mailing list if you don't already. ------------------ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6) Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessa-application-aware-ipv6-networking/01/ Presented by Zafar Ali Greg Mirsky: Operators will appreciate this work. There is some inconsistency in how the draft is named and what it addresses. I think OAM is broader than just ping. Maybe target the name more. I think the draft is ready for adoption (and adoption call). Zafar: I agree with name change. Please suggest new name. : Operators do like this. We have plans. Ron Bonica: Comment on where you're referencing it from. Not all devices have state forwarding control plane. Zafar: We can reword it. Cheng Li: Satoru Matsushima: As an operator who already deploys SRv6, I appreciate this work and hope the draft move forward. And support to keep the name SRv6-OAM. Ole: We've discussed where right place is for this. We think it can be worked here. Please raise hand if you're willing to work on it here. <hands were raised> Excellent. Zafar: spring is happy for 6man to work on this. Bob: It seems mostly about defining data header. Ole: Objections? Suresh: No objection but please also take to list. Ole: Those in favor of adopting hum now. <loud humming> Those opposed? <no audible humming> Thank you. We will take this to the list as well. ACTION: Chairs will confirm adoption on the mailing list. ------------------ Application-aware IPv6 Networking Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessa-application-aware-ipv6-networking/01/ Presented by Zhenbin Li Lorenzo Colitti: I can see where some people might be concerned. David Somers-Harris: I'm curious about the same thing. ------------------ IPv6 Encapsulation for IOAM - Enhancement of IPv6 Extension Headers Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessa-ipv6-encapsulation-for-ioam-enhancement-of-ipv6-extension-headers/00/ Presented by: Shuping Peng Greg Mirsky: I would suggest rather than putting data in packet to look at proposal in ippm WG that uses the packet to trigger measurements. This would allow you to tag multiple packets. Frank Brockners: We had a discussion on encapsulation of IAOM messages in 6man last time and we have another discussion now. I thought conclusion was to progress in ippm first. This work needs to go to ippm first. ------------------ Path Segment Encapsulation in SRv6 Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-6man-sessa-path-segment-encapsulation-in-srv6/02/ Presented by Cheng Li Ron Bonica: Which node consumes the data? Why is it not a destination header option? Cheng: We can get data very quickly from IP header instead of destination header. Better processing performance. Ron: If that's the case, when is it appropriate to use DH? Cheng: Let's discuss off-line. Zhenbin Li: ------------------ Segment Routing Header encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-6man-sessa-segment-routing-header-encapsulation-for-in-situ-oam-data-00 Presented by Zafar Ali <there was no feedback from 6man WG at this time> ------------------ DetNet SRv6 Data Plane Encapsulation Presentation: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-6man-sessa-detnet-srv6-data-plane-encapsulation-00 Presented by Xuesong Geng Ole: [not as chair] There is a non-WG-forming BoF trying to do something similar. I think there is a lot of overlap in what they are trying to solve. Xuesong: I don't think it's a similar problem. ------------------- Bob: Thank you and we will see you in Singapore. ------------------- Meeting Adjourned -------------------