Skip to main content

Minutes IETF112: mpls
minutes-112-mpls-00

Meeting Minutes Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls) WG
Date and time 2021-11-08 14:30
Title Minutes IETF112: mpls
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2021-12-26

minutes-112-mpls-00
November 8, 2021 (UTC)
14:30-15:30 Monday Session II

Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/session/mpls/
Codimd for Notes Taking:
https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-112-mpls/
Meetecho:
http://www.meetecho.com/ietf112/mpls/
Jabber:
xmpp:mpls@jabber.ietf.org?join

Chairs: Loa Andersson, Tarek Saad and Nicolai Leymann
Secretary: Mach Chen

1. Administrivia
Presenter: WG Chairs, (5 mins)
[Tarek]: Note Well and IETF Guidelines for Conduct
[Tarek]: There is a new github (http://github.com/ietf-wg-mpls) for the MPLS
Working Group. Please use it and add your input/comments.

2. WG Status & MPLS Open DT Report
Presenter: Tarek & Loa (15 mins)
[Tarek]: If you have updates to your drafts, please let us know (also for
upcoming IETF meetings). [Tarek]: One new RFC: RFC9041 [Loa]: Authors of
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint have confirmed that they will
respsond to open questions from AD. [Pavan]: Took a while to update
draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr after it was send back by AD to WG. Draft can
progress again. [Rakesh]: For draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr email was send,
believe document ready for WG last call. [Tarek]: Chairs take action.
[Stewart]: On SFL-control, the draft is ready can we proceed to next step?
[Loa]: Chairs will take action. [Shraddha]: For draft-ietf-mpls-epe-oam,
authors think it is ready for WGLC. [Tarek]: Please note that there will be in
addition the the MPLS session a joint session with PALS and DetNet later today
(Session 3). [Tarek]: No outstanding action for
draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation on authors from IETF111 and move to
next step accordingly. Review was done by MPLS-RT, comments were addressed.
[Kireeti]: LARP is ready for WG adoption. Can we get this done? [Loa]: Report
on Design Team. DT was formed to guarantee that we have a future proof
architecture. Scoped to MPLS Indicators and Ancilliary Data (or “MIAD”).
Ancillary Data may take different forms: ISD (In Stack Data), PSD (Post Stack
Data) or NoD (No Data). Functions that are already specified must also work in
the future. Several drafts are available, MIAD Architecture and Framework not
posted yet. Work will continue in DT meetings (Thursdays).

3. Encapsulation of Simple TWAMP (STAMP) for Pseudowires in MPLS Networks
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-mpls-stamp-pw
Presenter: Rakesh Gandhi (10 mins)
[Rakesh]: Requirements are encapsulation fo STAMP test packets for MPLS PWs and
packets need to follow smake (ECMP) path as data packets. Scope is
RFC8762/RFC8972 and P2P and P2MP MPLS PWs. [Greg]: Why do we need to define
encapsulation for no IP/UDP? We already have it defined for IP/UDP. [Rakesh]:
This is for traffic that is non-IP. We want the probe packet to follow the same
path (i.e. not to use IP/UDP). [Tarek]: Take questions/discussion to the list.
[Stewart]: Wanted to ask the same questions as Greg. [Stewart]: Suggest a
separate side meeting with the group interested to discuss in more detail.

4. A YANG Model for MPLS MSD
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qu-mpls-mpls-msd-yang
Presenter: Yinzhen Qu (10 mins)
[Yingzhen]: Maximum SID Depth were defined in RFC8476/RFC8491. MSD YANG
augmentation of RFC8960. Was decided to move MSD YANG as a split-off from
RFC9020 to separate draft. [Yingzhen]: Can we go for WG adoption after this
IETF? [Loa]: Are you asking for comments or WG adoption? [Yingzhen]: Comments
were addressed. Invite people to review. Additional comments will be addressed
after adoption. [Tarek]: Is it maximum segment, or maximum label depth?
[Yingzhen]: Yes, can be changed to label [Jeff]: Is there a return value in
case node does not know MSD? [Yingzhen]: Software only knows about features
node supports. [Jeff]: Let’s move the discussion to the list. [Tarek]: Why do
we have type/value? [Yingzhen]: Type is defined in RFC8476 also Entropy Label
possible. [Loa]: Running out of time, take it to the list.

5. Deterministic QoS for MPLS data plane considerations
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-detnet-mpls-tc-tcqf
Presenter: Toerless ECKERT (10 mins)
[Toerless]: Would like to see more people from MPLS involved in DetNet to see
how we can evolve the draft. [Toerless]: MPLS only allows per hop/per flow
bounded latency. Not in line with preferred service provider MLPS designs.
Several options to overcome this problem (with and without extensions/changes
to MPLS packet header / processing). [Toerless]: Would like to see one well
working, proven Service Provider Class bounded latency for DetNet with MPLS.
Also would like to start work on longer-term QoS header effort. [Loa]: What do
you want to get from the presentation in MPLS WG? [Toerless]: Want to get MPLS
folks to understand the problem. If we want to have DetNet as future driver for
MPLS networks, we need to have a bounded latency solution which fit SP
deployments.