IETF 123 Madrid
MBONED Agenda
Wed, Jul 23, 2025
09:30 - 11:00 CEST
Wed Session I, Hidalgo

Chat Log:
https://zulip.ietf.org/#narrow/stream/101-mboned/topic/ietf-123
Video log: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y9uT_E5t8
Full session recording (incl transcript, polls, chat, video,etc):
https://www.meetecho.com/ietf123/recordings#MBONED
https://meetecho-player.ietf.org/playout/?session=IETF121-MBONED-20241106-1500

Note taker: Sandy Zhang

Status of WG items

  1. Status of WG items
    Chairs, 10 min
    Recharter and updated milestones since 122
    Sandy Zhang: multicast YANG and redundant ingress failover drafts
    addressed all the comments received.
    Yisong Liu: AMT YANG requested yang doctors review and hasn't
    received comments.

  2. Multicast usage in LLM MoE (draft-zhang-rtgwg-llmmoe-multicast)
    Sandy Zheng, 15 min
    Mike: do you think about the scale problem?
    Sandy: some of the multicast requirements are just inside the node,
    for MoE there is explicit requirements across leaf/spine switch. For
    the specific use case of MoE, just 9 (for now) experts are selected
    at a time. And from the experience of cloud operator, the number of
    experts will not exceed 100. When we discuss the multicast use cases
    to send data to thousand of GPUs, it's better to have the explicit
    use cases and requirements.
    Hitoshi: Interesting and positive topic. Which working group does
    this draft want to be proceed.
    Sandy: For the use cases MBONED might be the suitable WG. We also
    have slots in BIER, RIFT session.
    Lenny: is this potential solution just for MoE and LLM use case or
    for all the AIDC training clusters?
    Sandy: There are existed broadcast and multicast operations in LLM.
    But they may just inside the node and be solved by private multicast
    solutions or by unicast only. The MoE use case requires the data
    transfer across leaf/spine switch, it's time to use network layer
    multicast technologies to help with it.
    Max: Many papers for using multicast in LLM may be help. The
    modification will also require the modification of LLM. For RDMA,
    the data transfer function may be changed.
    Sandy: Yes. The modification would be related to LLM coding and the
    function of the data transfering.

  3. Discovery Of Restconf Metadata for Source-specific multicast
    (draft-ietf-mboned-dorms)

  4. Circuit Breaker Assisted Congestion Control
    (draft-ietf-mboned-cbacc)
  5. Asymmetric Manifest Based Integrity (draft-ietf-mboned-ambi-04)
    Max Franke, 30 min
    DORMS ready for WGLC
    Gorry (from followup email that intended to write down what he said
    at mic):

"As an individual: I think that it would be really valuable to see if
the IETF could progress CBAC as one way to introduce helpful tools for
coexistance of multicast and unicast traffic !!!

As WIT AD: I think the CC/circuit breaker part of the "problem" falls
within the expertise in CCWG. I'd encourage you to reach out to CCWG and
think of not only presenting your work, but in discussing the results in
test scenarios and the traffic sharing properties. CCWG has published
RFC 9743, and I am hopeful that the evaluation tests in this draft will
be really helpful in growing confidence that multicast traffic is safe,
even when sharing constrained paths. I expect there likely can be
stronger requirements to define how a CBAC receiver works (too much
currently is SHOULD and not specified). This will also let the community
justify publication as a PS.

Overall, thanks for working on this!"

Max: yes, we plan to go to CCWG in next IETF meeting. Wanted to update
doc first.
Mohamed Boucadair (from chat): in addition to what Gorry mentioned,
looking at BCP133 would be helpful.

  1. Bandwidth-Aware Multicast
    (https://pourdamghani.net/_pages/IFIP25.pdf)
    Max Franke, 5 min
    Lenny: P2MP RSVP is able to do bw reservation for multicast trees
    today
    Jeffrey: yes. the P2MP RSVP is the only way currently and the
    simplest way to reserve bandwidth for multicast. The work may be in
    TEAS WG.

  2. Security and Privacy Considerations for Multicast Transports
    (draft-krose-multicast-security)
    Kyle Rose, 10 min
    Lenny: are you looking to adopt this draft in MBONED WG?
    Kyle: yes. and may get some attention from SEC area.
    Omar: Long time on this work. The work in CDN and with the
    unmodified applications would like to use in CDN, home server, etc.
    Glad to see it.
    Reading vote: yes 8, no 8
    Hitoshi: secure IGMP/MLD included?
    Kyle: this draft is not about the specifiction. It's more for
    analysis. How to meet the security requiments. More about web
    stream.
    Hooman: make sure the security is from the source to the browser.
    Kyle: it's not hop by hop. For anyone authority in the network who
    can subscribe the demand
    Lenny: may need assistance from SEC area.
    Adoption vote: yes 14, no 3, no opinion 2

  3. Flexicast QUIC (draft-navarre-quic-flexicast)
    Louis Navarre, 10 min
    Francois Michel: do you want to get adoption? Would be happy to help
    moving this work forward.
    Louis: happy to show the implementation and happy to move forward
    this work.
    Jeffrey: how many reveivers can this handle?
    Louis: the test is 1000 receivers but it can be more.

  4. Experiences with LISP Multicast deployments
    (draft-vgovindan-lisp-multicast-deploy)
    Prasad Govindan, 5 min
    run out of time, no presentation this time.
    Lenny: why adopted in LISP and not MBONED?
    Prasad: More LISP specific, so expertise is there. But welcomes
    MBONED input.