Minutes IETF114: mpls: Tue 13:30
minutes-114-mpls-202207261330-00

Date/Time: Tuesday Session II, July 26, 2022, 13:30-14:30 (UTC-4)
Room: Independence A/B

Chairs: Loa Andersson/Tarek Saad/Nicolai Leymann
Secretary: Mach Chen

1. Chairs Intro (Agenda Bashing) - 13:30
   Duration: 10 mins
   WG Chairs

   Tarek gave the introduction of the WG status update.
   Loa:Mach Chen has been appointed as the sheperd of
   draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl, he will prepare the writeup and move
   the draft forward. The draft has been expired, Stewart will re-post
   the draft soon.

2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data - 13:40
   ID: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam/
   Duration: 10 mins
   Presenter: Rakesh Gandhi

   Rakesh presented the update.

   Greg:1) gACH is designed only to be used for OAM packet, not for
   data traffic; 2) pre-allocated iOAM trace opiton for MPLS will
   seriouly affect performance, I belive that is not useful option for
   MPLS;3)given you are requesting WG adoption, but the proposed
   encapsulation is not workable.

   Rakesh:Agree with gACH is designed for OAM useage and not situatable
   for data traffic, can be updated by using the common extension
   header to carry iOAM data if that is deemed to be the right
   direction.

   Greg:The cummunity did not decide on which solution will be accepted
   yet, but I hope that iOAM solution will be based on the solution the
   WG adopted.

   Rakesh: Yes, looks like MPLS Extension Header is the only
   alternative right now, so may be go with that?

3. mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing - 13:50
   ID:
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology/

   Duration: 5 mins
   Presenter: Mankamana Mishra

   Loa:Regarding WG LC, you don't need to tighten this to a meeting.

   Mankamana: This draft is ready for WG LC.

   Loa: Send an email to list to request publication.

4. Deprecating the Use of Router Alert in LSP Ping - 13:55
   ID:
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kompella-mpls-lspping-norao/

   Duration: 10 mins
   Presenter: Ron Bonica/Kireeti Kompella

   No slides, Kireeti presented the intentions and status of the draft.

   Loa: To make more discussions on the list.

   Zafar: Please elaborate on what is happening in ipv6.

   Kireeti: There's similar effort in 6man.

   Adrian Farrel(from chat panel):In answer to Zafar's question, the
   draft that raised this in 6man was
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert/.
   That draft expired earlier this month. It did get some discussion
   and it is unclear why it has lapsed.

   Greg: Suggest to use DA for entropy in ipv6 in stead of using soure
   port as entropy.

5. IANA Registry for the First Nibble Following a Label Stack - 14:05
   ID：https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kbbma-mpls-1stnibble/
   Duration: 10 mins
   Presenter: Kireeti Kompella

   Tarek: It's understandable that all packets will carry CW if ingres
   and egress have been signaled using control plane to negociate that
   CW is needed. But if you do on-demand type of thing, then there will
   be some pacekts will carry CW and some packets may not, there will
   be timing issue between control plane and data packet. We can not
   correlate when the state is ready for CW to be placed.

   Kireeti: We do both.

6. Generalized IPv6 Tunnel for MPLS - 14:15
   ID：https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-mpls-gip6-mpls/
   Duration: 10 mins
   Presenter: Jie Dong/Shuanglong Chen

   Shuanglong gave the presentation.

   Greg: 1) please clarify the complexcity of OAM over MPLS; 2) how do
   you think this work is related to RFC7510 (MPLS over UDP)?

   Jie: For question 1, due to the lack of source information. As for
   MPLS over UDP, it's a separate thing, it's different from the
   orignal MPLS encapsulation.

   Greg:If IP/UDP encapsulation is used, for the LSP Ping OAM packet,
   the source information is carried.

   Jie: that's another encapsulation, but for MPLS, it does not carry
   such information.

   Greg: It's matter of choice, you can use SFL, then the problem is
   addressed. If you choose non-IP encapsulution, you can use SFL.

   Jie: That one is also mentioned in the presentation, it's an option
   but not widely used.

   Greg: You are trying to define another option that is not
   implemented by anybody yet.

   Tarek: Both MPLS and IP header have TLL and TC fields, which will
   take effect if there is confiction?

   Robin: The MPLS TTL and TC will be used. We're thinking just
   carrying the label value only and use the ipv6 TTL and TC field, but
   this means a lot of changes will be made.

   Tarek: why calling it SID, is it SRv6 related?

   Robin: yes/no, it's segment that contain MPLS labels,it's
   generalized segement, not exactly the classic SRv6 where locater,
   function, ARGs are inlcuded, but for this, it just contains MPLS
   labels.

   Tarek: It's good to clarify this in the draft.

   Acee: The draft name should be changed as well, not just
   clarification.

   Robin: OK

   Jeff Tantsura(from chat panel):Why taking something simple and
   performant and replacing it with, not even sure what to call it? the
   motivation doesn’t seem to hold MPLSinUDP is supported on by all
   shipping silicon and is AF agnostic.