Skip to main content

Minutes IETF111: bess

Meeting Minutes BGP Enabled ServiceS (bess) WG
Title Minutes IETF111: bess
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2021-08-18

Working Group Status
   5 RFC published since last IETF
   2 Draft in RFC queue
   8 drafts under IESG review
   4 new working group draft since last IETF

   draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast : security update missing. will be ready to
   move once security section is updated.

   vpws-fxc - Ready for WGLC. Latest comments have been addressed.

   Jeff Haas:
        core IGP BGP yang model is making progress. it's not ready yet.

     - 00 posted after ietf 109
     - 7432-bis 01 uploaded
     - more description added in some of the sections.
     - good to get working group comments
     - new section 7.11 added to cover 2 attributes
     - new section 7.12 proposes relative order of magnitude
     - WGLC done
     - need to close on comment from anoop
     - once comments are addressed, it would move to next step.
     - some small modification
     - ready to move forward

 - minor update since last version
 - this version has binding IR to cover SR MPLS and SRv6
 - seeking comments from working group

 - multiple vendors implementing
 - multiple related draft being presented across WG
 - seeking comments and WG adoption

 - State route type replaces Leaf A-D route
 - Clarification on BGP-MVPN replacement use case
 - there are common ground between two approaches (bgp multicast controller or
 p2mp-policy) - more discussion needed and working group comments needed - no
 conclusion yet

Susan : found some error in other draft which handled error as per 7606. IDR
chairs are suggesting
        to have generic discussion to handle error condition and update 7606.
Hooman: susan addressed some of my question. one draft is just underlay and
other is overlay and underlay. BGP multicast draft
        addressing underlay and overlay, so its heavy and has lot of

 - new refresh posted. seeking more comment

 - new refresh of draft
 - minor edits and fixes.
 - seeking more comments

Patrice - why you need Bridge domain in leaf
Jorge: you may or you may not have bridge domain

 - new refresh of draft submitted
 - we have existing implementation
Swadesh - is this errata for 7432
Ali - this is not errata. this is new service interface type.

 - implementation exist
 - seeking more comments

 - DF election handshake is not ready yet.
 - NTP based solution works fine and implemented
 - no objection to remove the handshake and move forward with NTP based
 - seeking comments and ready for WGLC

 - new draft
 - further study for other cases

 - need more feedback for draft
 - Swadesh  - will ask offline question