Skip to main content

Minutes IETF108: rtgwg

Meeting Minutes Routing Area Working Group (rtgwg) WG
Date and time 2020-07-27 14:10
Title Minutes IETF108: rtgwg
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2020-08-03

IETF 108 RTGWG Meeting
Chairs:     Chris Bowers
            Jeff Tantsura
Secretary:  Yingzhen Qu
Date: Monday, 27 July 2020 
Time: 14:10 - 15:50 UTC

Administrivia and WG update           

YANG Model for QoS 
Aseem Choudhary

SRv6 Path Egress Protection 
Huaimo Chen/Zhibo Hu

Ketan:     the behavior of mirror Sid, is it going to be described in 
           SPRING or RTGWG? Code point from IANA?
Huaimo:    we changed to encap to match SRv6 network programing.
Ketan:     regarding mirror SID which is not in SRv6 network programming. 
           Let’s take it offline.
Ketan:     regarding IGP code points, are you going to present in LSR? 
Huaimo:    we’ll do IGP extension in LSR.
Jeff T:    you should send this work to LSR
Martin V:  This needs to go into the architecture doc.
Jeff T:    there should be formal definition in architecture regarding 
           mirror SID.

SRv6 Midpoint Protection 
Xuesong Geng/Zhibo Hu

An Architecture for Network Function Interconnect 
Wim Henderickx

Zhenbin Li: will VNF support SR-MPLS? this looks challenging. Because 
            the architecture depends heavily on SR-MPLS.
Wim:        We described so far with MPLS data plan, but it also works 
            with SRv6. In this architecture, you can have a virtual 
            switch that has the capability. You have various ways to 
            interact with so the VNF doesn't necessarily need to support 
            that capability.
Chris B:    We need to cut the discussion due to time limitation.
Jeff T:     Robin, please send your questions to the list.

Dynamic Networks to Hybrid Cloud DCs Problem Statement 
Networks Connecting to Hybrid Cloud DCs: Gap Analysis 
Linda Dunbar

The Problem Statement for Precise Transport Networking 
The Requirements for Precise Transport Networking 

Jeff T:    interesting work. please make sure to add references to improve 

SRv6 Deployment Consideration 
Robin Li

Wim:       have you considered RFC 8660 for comparison? Some statements 
           are incorrect if you take that into account. Let’s take it 
           off line.
Tony Li:   Have you considered overhead?
Robin:     In SPRING, there is discussion about SRv6 header compression.
Tony Li:   I’m interested in your deployment experience.
Chris B:   Let's take these to the list.

APN: Application-aware Networking 
Shuping Peng