Chairs : Gunter, Victor 

Attendees: Acee Lindem, Jacob Uecker, Longfei Dai, Randy Bush, Shunwan Zhunag, Alvaro Retana, Jorge Rabadan , Donald Sharp , Tony Przygienda

Call-in: Keyur Patel


Notes:

Introduction : 
- Victor started recording at 10:35AM EST
- Gunter sharing agenda slides
- Gunter supplying introduction and detailed agenda review (page 4 of chair slides)
- Key points
	- State of LSVR
	- Discuss SPF Extensions Draft (adopted)
	- Usage Applicability of LSVR document
	- Discuss need for neighbor and liveliness detection (discussion only)
	- Closing and next steps

- Slide 5 - view of “where we are at”.  Interim Meeting 1 post IETF101 and pre-IETF102
- Slide 6 - Discussion of missing work on YANG spec document
- Slide 7 - LSVR Charter Status
	- New applicability draft version is one for review / based on potential adoption 
- Slide 8 - Agenda review / bashing?
- Comment Keyur on agenda - as we looking into this work, neighbor discovery is a key component.  preference that work comes into this WG.

<< BGP-Based SPF IETF Interim 1 Slides >>
- Keyur Patel
- Slide 1: status update
	- 01 submitted end of may
	- incorporate most of the comments
- Slide 2: Changes to to Draft version 1 slide
	- added peer models section
	- BGP SPF SAFI section update.  Removed VPN SAFI as it’s not used in RFC7752
	- Node NLRI section updated for SPF algorithm types
	- want to removed MRAI timer

- Slide 4: Changes to Draft 1 continue
	- BGP decision process for better readability 
	- changes to next-hop manipulation / MP_REACH_ATTRIBUTE next hop
	- IANA section simplified 

Slide 5: Things to discuss
	- discovery for neighbor
	- deployment use cases
	- should we adopt AS hop count?

Slide 6: Things to discuss (cont’d)
	- Multipel SFP Domain 

Q: Alvaro: questions on deployments.  Where are we on implementations ?
A: Keyur: we are not there yet, from after WG document status (looking to get implementations going)

Q: Victor/hat-off: what other topologies vs. CLOS? support non-uniform topologies 
A: Keyur: other clos topologies. we got feedback that this can go beyond clos. - yes consider non-uniform topologies

C: Gunter/Chair: discussion of what we need to have in document.  would like to see WG that includes both sPF and vector routing as well.
A: Keyur: it’s quite possible.  solution as it stands, does not constrain to any given topology 
A: Randy: this is the BGP/SPF.  Are we wanting to go up-level on LsVR routing overall ?  Gunter: yes, that’s what I am thinking
A: Alvaro: looking at the charter.  Randy is right, we charted this to be BGP/SFP.  Agree with Gunter, there can be other transports later, partition domains (understand).  I wanted to show we can do this fast, and ship within a year.  Also want us to be ready for the future.  Preferred solution (D hat), include what Gunter said, in the draft.
A: Victor: do we include reference architecture in the spec to start
A: Alvaro: use that text / reference for future work. 
C: Acee: one of the main motivations for BGP/SPF, is that all the underlying machinery exits.  We need more requirements to generalize it. 
C: Randy: comment on word controller, what did we mean? Acee: response 

Q: Gunter: would we have different link state database? Randy: why is BGP make this case more likely? (e.g. flooding deltas?) 
C: Keyur: how to manage ways of announcements. If policy drops traffic, link state can drop it.  In CLOS, you don’t just have one path, you have N-multi-paths. NO flooding? Randy: no flooding is big trade-off. and we have update only propagation. Errors or policy can cause discrepancies.   Good trade-off of update only, vs. flooding which does not scale.
C: detailed multi-party discussion on risks of BGP , errors, and risks. 


<< LSVR BGP SPF Applicability Interim1 >>
- Acee Lindem
- Slide 2 Agenda,
- Slide 3 version 1 slides. 
	- discussion what to put int applicability vs. base spec
	- security items not in draft yet
- Slide 4 Interaction with Other BGP AFI/SAFs (1/2)
	- intended for underlay where other AFI/SAFIs resolve next-hops using BGP-LS sPF routers
	- intended for flat data center network
	- interaction with IPv4/IPv6 (first SAF which is dual stack with EVPN)
- Slide 5 Interaction with other BGP AFI/SAFs (2/2)
	- Interaction with base BGP-LS address family 
- Slide 6 BGP-only Data center routing
	- diagram, discussion on that diagram (shows underlay, overlay and overall TE environment)  Focus on cloud in middle / underlay 
- Slide 8 Sparse BGP Peering and BFD Peering
	- if you have dense topology, you may not want BGP on every link
	- Liveness detection outside of BGP (link status can be BFD)
	- IBGP case.  EBGP case, may need to be done differently (wanted to leave open for IBGP or EBGP)
- Slide 9 BGP SPF Data Center Spares Peering Example 
	- diagram.  Show sessions vs. topology 

- Slide 10 Bi-conneted peer heuristic (new section)
	- new area, not a lot of comments
	- routers should know what are your northbound and southbound ports
	- work in other WGs discuss how to know 
	
- Slide 11 BGP SPF Bi-Connected Heuristic 
	- diagram.  spines and leaves .  discussion on slide on how leaves peer to spines
	- Q: Randy: may not be comfortable with partial topology (prefer full connectivity - maybe)
	- C; we should have full mesh of sessions without updates on all of them.
	- C: Park conversation for later / list

- Slide 12: BGP Discovery Mechanisms
	- We need a mech. Three current options: LLDP, LSOV, and BGP peer discovery (draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery) 
	- Comment, LSOE has not other owner, could work on it (opinion)
	- Chair: comment on where to have / discuss need for BGP discovery mech.  Mention of ECP (Edge Control Protocol).  we should discuss what we expect form such a mechanism 
		- the ECP must be new, I have not heard of it.
	- C: Keyur, I cannot find it in IETF.  Comment it’s in IEEE, not in IETF.  It’s hard to modify these protocols (the protocols need to be extendable)
	- C: Randy: if we can describe what we need, then we can describe the API, and then protocols would need to meet the API.

- Slide 13: DCI and Non-Data Center Applicability 
	- put sections for questions that people asked. 
	- DCI does not seem to fit here / that’s more of a GW function	
	- Non DC use?  we are not talking about that now

- Slide 14: BGP SPF Security 
	- Not really different the classic BGP

- Slide 15: BGP-LS SP Applicability Discussion Points
	- What else needs to go into draft	
	- some issues are about scaling and assumptions 
	- routing policy.  discussions of aggregation
	- partitioning of BGP-LS domains ? - we may not want to use AS to be that partition 
		- Randy: confederations? Acee- possible 

- Slide 16: Next Steps
	- Consider for WG adoption	
	- Discovery mech?
	- Refine Discussions	
	- Chair : where are we at? is this ready for adoption? 
 

Chair : any more comments?

<< Discuss of neighbor and liveness discussions >>

- Chair: with respect to neighborship, or liveness - we should create a common understanding of what is needed/ requirements.  we can use this to compare this to options.  This does not mean the solution space will be in our working group. location is separate discussion.

- 
	
= List Items

- Adoption for Applicability 
- Discussion on Requirements for Liveness and Neighbor Discovery 
- Ensure we have discussion on any prototypes being developed