Recording : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7100UyqFLHs Working Group Status Chairs 15 min Martin : - For draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding the draft will loose ballots because of iesg change and it will have to go through another telzchat Jorge : - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd all DISCUSS cleared for proxy arp and other (ND) all DISCUSS being resolved. - need some more time to look at comments and reply to emails. draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush -jorge - ready for WGLC draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking -Sussan : first week of April expect reply . draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery - it defines two different solution, one solution is complex, may be split it in two document. draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve: - draft expired after WGLC failure. - Author have not responded to comments. - If sami can not edit it, we may need new editor to complete the work draft-mishra-bess-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-use-cases-08 Gyan Mishra 05 min - feedback seeking from working-group. - WG adoption is expected. Stephane - is it best practice document Gyan - changed it to best practice instead of standard. Eduard V : deliver next hop for IPv4 over IPv6 infrastructure is mandatory for the progress to IPv6-only draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bfd Donald Eastlake 05 min Jorge : last IETF there were some comment provided, i did not see its being addressed email sent Donald : comment would be addressed. draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-01 draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-06 Luc Andre Burdet 05` min - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa is mature draft and has multiple vendor support - draft ready for WGLC - draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-06 , based on feedback there has been incremental updates. - it is ready for adoption. draft-krattiger-evpn-modes-interop Lukas Krattiger 10 min - document ready for adoption Wen lin : syymetric and asymetric IRB support . what is forwarding behavior ? whether it would be L2 or L3 ? Lukas : yes, it would be L2 forwarding Wen line : it would be good to write in draft about forwarding model. Wen lin: Have comment on Vlan aware and Vlan based service. Will have offline discussion about some of the MUST statement in draft. draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement-01 Dhananjaya Rao 10 min draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-00.txt Dhananjaya Rao 10 min Jorge: NLRI including key len in route. RR behavior is new the way we do today. are we changing behavior 7606 or is it adding new security risk. DJ: based on experience we have come up with this solution. security implication would be discussed. Jorge: encapsulation part of NLRI, no label DJ : we can discuss offline Swadesh : function & locator can be carried as part of NLRI Jorge: Swadesh : no label in NLRI . Srihari : NLRI whether is right direction. DJ : non key TLV, we can discuss further Shraddha : MPLS you need prefix to label , why prefix to SID mapping is needed. it would be useful to propose next draft Swadesh : composed of locator and function Haibo Wang : Jeffery Haas: The packing conversations will become interesting with any of the PDU formats. Having some per-NLRI+key state that is optional leads to an interesting discussion about what bits get refactored from path attributes to nlri-optional. AIGP for example would currently cause packing to break in some situations as well. Ketan : @Srihari about the NLRI keys - the keys are just E and C, the non-key is the encapsulation data like label & SID function Kaliraj : I just wanted to note that the end-to-end intent will not be preserved, if the mechanisms of the CAR validation/resolution are followed as described this presentation (in slide 21, perhaps). Ketan : @Shraddha the same remote/egress IPv6 PE loopback may be reachable via different intents and hence may use different End.* SIDs for the encapsulation. Srihari : @Ketan - I understand, the non-key were attributes and now being proposed to be part of NLRI. My point is, as wg (both IDR and bess) needs to assess if this is the direction that we want to go. My opinion, this is reinventing wheel. Ketan: We can have discussion . Kaliraj : "Transport-layer" CAR routes must not use "default/best-effort" tunnels. In order to preserve end-to-end intent Ketan : @Kaliraj, IIRC, the default/best-effort was used as a fallback and that too based on the defined policy Jeffery Haas : The idea of updated NLRI is interesting. Exploring the consequences of it will be good engineering discussion. Ketan : @ Jeff - I don't believe the proposal is for "unconstrained" stuff getting into the NLRI. There needs to be a line drawn here. Jeffery: Agreed, ketan. That's where I think the discussion needs to go kaliraj : @ketan, when u allow transport-layer routes to fallback to default, end-end intent cannot be preserved. you may figure it out when you implement, test :) Ketan : @ Kaliraj, consider operator is most concerned with delay in the core (i.e. long haul) and says deploys FlexAlgo with delay metric there. There is no need to do that in the access layer within the metro. So use FA in the core and best effort in the access. :-) draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr Shraddha Hegde 10 min - across vendor discussion in process if it needs to be merged. draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-07 Kaliraj 10 min Swadesh : i see you carrying colored route target. do you supprt import sementic. can route carry multiple RT ? Kaliraj: Route will map to one transport class and it can carry multiple RT draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn Wei Wang 10 min draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-00 Tony Przygienda 10 min Stephane : is there any relationship with BGP autfo conf in IDR. Tony : I am not aware of it. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------