Leonard Giuliano | 25 Jul 17:24 2016
Picon

draft mboned mins


Below are draft mins/notes from MBONED in Berlin (thanks Hooman).  Please 
take a look and let the chairs know if there is anything that should be 
added or corrected.

1.       Mtrace v2 draft 13

a.       ready for last call

2.       tim chown, mboned-multicast-models

a.       RP create a lot of issue over internet and multi operator.  For BCP more operational content .

b.      micheal brian: a paragraph or 2 on common use cases of multicast.

c.       steven, discover or auto configuration don't use SSM. Need to say in what context we need to use SSM.

d.      start with common use case and recommendation of the protocol for the application

3.        piercy tarapore, use of multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points

a.       descripted use case for ATT grab an example and explain why we need to use SSM

b.      ICE: internet multicast will not fly because of state

c.       Brian: how do you charge for multicast through internet. Don't think multicast in internet is a go.

d.       IP has improved on-demand but major events need multicast like superball world cup

e.       DT: need for multicast service are still there
(Continue reading)

Greg Shepherd | 21 Jul 22:47 2016
Picon

Minutes?

Who took minutes for the combined MBONED/PIM WG meetings this past Monday in Berlin?

Greg
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
Leonard Giuliano | 15 Jul 14:59 2016
Picon

MBONED agenda in Berlin


MBONED agenda posted below.  Please let the chairs know if we missed 
anyone.  We will be meeting at 10AM on Mon in Berlin, once again jointly 
with PIM WG.

Hitoshi/Tim/Percy- please send the slides you plan to present to the 
chairs by COB today so that folks can download and review beforehand.

Thanks,
Lenny and Greg

IETF 96 Berlin
MBONED Agenda
Mon, Jul 18, 2016
10:00-12:30
Charlottenburg I (Held jointly with PIM WG)

Status of WG items
Chairs, 5 min

draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-13
Asaeda, 10 min

draft-acg-mboned-multicast-models
Chown, 10 min

draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering
Tarapore, 10 min

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

Tim Chown | 7 Jul 17:52 2016
Picon

Re: WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03

> On 7 Jul 2016, at 16:49, TARAPORE, PERCY S <pt5947 <at> att.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Tim,
> 
> Just to be clear - your proposed draft would be a new document correct?

Yes. 

Though it would be rather unlikely to progress to RFC before or at the same time as yours unless we had very
quick consensus on its contents and message.  But if it’s not a normative reference you could cite it in
draft form, I believe.

Tim

> 
> Percy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc <at> ecs.soton.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 11:48 AM
> To: TARAPORE, PERCY S <pt5947 <at> att.com>
> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike <at> swm.pp.se>; mboned <at> ietf.org; NORTZ, DOUG <dn2984 <at> att.com>
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On 7 Jul 2016, at 16:29, TARAPORE, PERCY S <pt5947 <at> att.com> wrote:
>> 
>> OK Mikael,
>> 
>> Here's how we plan on resolving your comments.
>> 
>> Since Lenny Giuliano had provided the text recommending the use of PIM-SSM, I have asked Lenny to try and
include some additional text illustrating the benefits of PIM-SSM. Tim Chown's response on pointing to
such benefits currently described in RFC 4607 was very helpful. 
> 
> Mikael and I have grabbed this issue by the horns and have authored a (very rough) -00 draft of a multicast
service model draft which will allow the WG the opportunity to make a firmer and documented statement on
SSM in the form or an Informational or BCP RFC.  We’ll post it on Friday (Lenny is having a look at it). The
chairs have been kind enough to give the draft a short slot in Berlin for discussion.  
> 
> Tim
> 
>> Regarding your comment on the term "peering point", your suggestion to include a sentence describing
what is meant is fine. We have used this term in our dealings with ALL our Service Provider and ISP partners.
In our Service Level Agreements with all our partners, we state that a peering point is a "Location where
traffic is exchanged between two networks". Please indicate if this is sufficient. If not, please
provide additional text and/or alternate text that we can include in the Draft.
>> 
>> My request to Lenny and Mikael is to provide their texts/responses before the Berlin IETF meeting (July
18). That will enable us to have a discussion on these changes to the MBONE WG. All other comments in
Mikael's latest email can also be discussed in Berlin.
>> 
>> Thank you
>> 
>> Percy & Bob
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike <at> swm.pp.se] 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:22 AM
>> To: TARAPORE, PERCY S <pt5947 <at> att.com>
>> Cc: Greg Shepherd <gjshep <at> gmail.com>; mboned <at> ietf.org; SAYKO, ROBERT J <rs1983 <at> att.com>; NORTZ,
DOUG <dn2984 <at> att.com>
>> Subject: RE: [MBONED] WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03
>> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, TARAPORE, PERCY S wrote:
>> 
>>> Re: your first point about a citation, the text that is currently 
>>> adopted is a result of many comments made during the Working Group 
>>> meetings as well as previous Last Calls that needed to be resolved by 
>>> us. What you see is proposed text that we accepted from one of the 
>>> commenters. At this late stage, we do not wish to make changes that may 
>>> reignite previous concerns.
>> 
>> So you think it's fine that the document makes statements about things 
>> that are recommended without any pointers as to why? There is no document 
>> to point to that says why PIM-SSM is better than PIM-SM?
>> 
>> I have set up PIM-SM with anycast RP with MSDP to multiple large 
>> international operators and NRENs. I know why PIM-SSM is beneficial, but 
>> another reader might not.
>> 
>>> Re: your second point about confusing terminology for operators, please 
>>> realize that Bob Sayko and I (two of the lead co-authors of this BCP) 
>>> represent AT&T, a rather large operator. We have been using this
>> 
>> Well, AT&T is an incumbent telco. A huge one. It's not uncommon for these 
>> kinds of companies to have internal terminology that isn't used anywhere 
>> else. There are lots of other terms in use today, actually I asked some 
>> people who work across different operators and people mentioned NNI, PNI, 
>> "Internet exchange point" and multiple other wording.
>> 
>> My suggestion is to define "peering point" in the introduction. An 
>> additional sentence might be the only thing needed.
>> 
>> Another thing, AMT is mentioned 7 times in the document before it's 
>> defined in the 8th mention. Also, the reference for AMT points to a draft, 
>> not RFC7450, and says it's work in progress (which I hope it no longer 
>> is).
>> 
>> Mentions of eBGP, BGMP and MBGP are also done without definition or 
>> reference.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike <at> swm.pp.se
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MBONED mailing list
>> MBONED <at> ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
> 

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
Tim Chown | 7 Jul 17:48 2016
Picon

Re: WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03

Hi,

> On 7 Jul 2016, at 16:29, TARAPORE, PERCY S <pt5947 <at> att.com> wrote:
> 
> OK Mikael,
> 
> Here's how we plan on resolving your comments.
> 
> Since Lenny Giuliano had provided the text recommending the use of PIM-SSM, I have asked Lenny to try and
include some additional text illustrating the benefits of PIM-SSM. Tim Chown's response on pointing to
such benefits currently described in RFC 4607 was very helpful. 

Mikael and I have grabbed this issue by the horns and have authored a (very rough) -00 draft of a multicast
service model draft which will allow the WG the opportunity to make a firmer and documented statement on
SSM in the form or an Informational or BCP RFC.  We’ll post it on Friday (Lenny is having a look at it). The
chairs have been kind enough to give the draft a short slot in Berlin for discussion.  

Tim

> Regarding your comment on the term "peering point", your suggestion to include a sentence describing
what is meant is fine. We have used this term in our dealings with ALL our Service Provider and ISP partners.
In our Service Level Agreements with all our partners, we state that a peering point is a "Location where
traffic is exchanged between two networks". Please indicate if this is sufficient. If not, please
provide additional text and/or alternate text that we can include in the Draft.
> 
> My request to Lenny and Mikael is to provide their texts/responses before the Berlin IETF meeting (July
18). That will enable us to have a discussion on these changes to the MBONE WG. All other comments in
Mikael's latest email can also be discussed in Berlin.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Percy & Bob
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike <at> swm.pp.se] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:22 AM
> To: TARAPORE, PERCY S <pt5947 <at> att.com>
> Cc: Greg Shepherd <gjshep <at> gmail.com>; mboned <at> ietf.org; SAYKO, ROBERT J <rs1983 <at> att.com>; NORTZ,
DOUG <dn2984 <at> att.com>
> Subject: RE: [MBONED] WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03
> 
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, TARAPORE, PERCY S wrote:
> 
>> Re: your first point about a citation, the text that is currently 
>> adopted is a result of many comments made during the Working Group 
>> meetings as well as previous Last Calls that needed to be resolved by 
>> us. What you see is proposed text that we accepted from one of the 
>> commenters. At this late stage, we do not wish to make changes that may 
>> reignite previous concerns.
> 
> So you think it's fine that the document makes statements about things 
> that are recommended without any pointers as to why? There is no document 
> to point to that says why PIM-SSM is better than PIM-SM?
> 
> I have set up PIM-SM with anycast RP with MSDP to multiple large 
> international operators and NRENs. I know why PIM-SSM is beneficial, but 
> another reader might not.
> 
>> Re: your second point about confusing terminology for operators, please 
>> realize that Bob Sayko and I (two of the lead co-authors of this BCP) 
>> represent AT&T, a rather large operator. We have been using this
> 
> Well, AT&T is an incumbent telco. A huge one. It's not uncommon for these 
> kinds of companies to have internal terminology that isn't used anywhere 
> else. There are lots of other terms in use today, actually I asked some 
> people who work across different operators and people mentioned NNI, PNI, 
> "Internet exchange point" and multiple other wording.
> 
> My suggestion is to define "peering point" in the introduction. An 
> additional sentence might be the only thing needed.
> 
> Another thing, AMT is mentioned 7 times in the document before it's 
> defined in the 8th mention. Also, the reference for AMT points to a draft, 
> not RFC7450, and says it's work in progress (which I hope it no longer 
> is).
> 
> Mentions of eBGP, BGMP and MBGP are also done without definition or 
> reference.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike <at> swm.pp.se
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
Tim Chown | 3 Jul 09:46 2016
Picon

Re: WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03

Hi,

> On 3 Jul 2016, at 08:22, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike <at> swm.pp.se> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, TARAPORE, PERCY S wrote:
> 
>> Re: your first point about a citation, the text that is currently adopted is a result of many comments made
during the Working Group meetings as well as previous Last Calls that needed to be resolved by us. What you
see is proposed text that we accepted from one of the commenters. At this late stage, we do not wish to make
changes that may reignite previous concerns.
> 
> So you think it's fine that the document makes statements about things that are recommended without any
pointers as to why? There is no document to point to that says why PIM-SSM is better than PIM-SM?

Well, I think we would have strong WG consensus on why, but one option is to point to the benefits of SSM listed
in Section 1, Introduction, of RFC 4607. Though that is by no means an exhaustive list of benefits, e.g. it
doesn’t mention having to manage MSDP.

Tim

> I have set up PIM-SM with anycast RP with MSDP to multiple large international operators and NRENs. I know
why PIM-SSM is beneficial, but another reader might not.

> 
>> Re: your second point about confusing terminology for operators, please realize that Bob Sayko and I
(two of the lead co-authors of this BCP) represent AT&T, a rather large operator. We have been using this
> 
> Well, AT&T is an incumbent telco. A huge one. It's not uncommon for these kinds of companies to have
internal terminology that isn't used anywhere else. There are lots of other terms in use today, actually I
asked some people who work across different operators and people mentioned NNI, PNI, "Internet exchange
point" and multiple other wording.
> 
> My suggestion is to define "peering point" in the introduction. An additional sentence might be the only
thing needed.
> 
> Another thing, AMT is mentioned 7 times in the document before it's defined in the 8th mention. Also, the
reference for AMT points to a draft, not RFC7450, and says it's work in progress (which I hope it no longer is).
> 
> Mentions of eBGP, BGMP and MBGP are also done without definition or reference.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike <at> swm.pp.se
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
"IETF Secretariat" | 24 Jun 18:00 2016
Picon

mboned - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 96

Dear Leonard Giuliano,

The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request. 

mboned Session 1 (2:30:00)
    Monday, Morning Session I 1000-1230
    Room Name: Charlottenburg I size: 80
    ---------------------------------------------

Special Note: Combined with PIM

Request Information:

---------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Name: MBONE Deployment
Area Name: Operations and Management Area
Session Requester: Leonard Giuliano

Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s):  2.5 Hours
Number of Attendees: 50
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 First Priority: bess mmusic pim softwire bier

Special Requests:
  Request a 2.5 hr slot for a joint WG session with PIM WG. 
---------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

Leonard Giuliano | 23 Jun 18:23 2016
Picon

Call for MBONED agenda items in Berlin

All,

In Berlin, we will be once again meeting jointly with PIM WG, currently 
scheduled for Mon, Jul18 at 10AM.  If you would like a slot to speak, 
please contact the chairs with the usual info: name of draft, amount of 
time.

Thanks,
Lenny and Greg

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

internet-drafts | 6 Jun 06:56 2016
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-13.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the MBONE Deployment of the IETF.

        Title           : Mtrace Version 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast
        Authors         : Hitoshi Asaeda
                          Kerry Meyer
                          WeeSan Lee
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-13.txt
	Pages           : 34
	Date            : 2016-06-05

Abstract:
   This document describes the IP multicast traceroute facility, named
   Mtrace version 2 (Mtrace2).  Unlike unicast traceroute, Mtrace2
   requires special implementations on the part of routers.  This
   specification describes the required functionality in multicast
   routers, as well as how an Mtrace2 client invokes a query and
   receives a reply.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-13

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-13

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

Tim Chown | 1 Jun 23:15 2016
Picon

Re: WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03

Hi,

> On 1 Jun 2016, at 17:23, Greg Shepherd <gjshep <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This email restarts the WG Last Call two week counter for the draft:
> draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03
> 
> Please read and respond to the list for or against, and any edits or nits. This two week counter will expire
on 14-June.

My OPS-DIR review comments from February were largely addressed, e.g. the focus on recommending SSM, so
I’m happy in that regard, and would vote ‘for’.

The document still seems quite verbose, though I wouldn’t object to it progressing on that basis alone.

Tim

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
Greg Shepherd | 1 Jun 18:23 2016
Picon

WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03

This email restarts the WG Last Call two week counter for the draft:
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-03

Please read and respond to the list for or against, and any edits or nits. This two week counter will expire on 14-June.

Chairs
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

Gmane