Dino Farinacci | 24 May 19:20 2016
Picon

Re: NVO3 Multicast Framework

Sorry, I thought I had. NVo3, see my comments below.

Dino

> On May 24, 2016, at 6:14 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <matthew.bocci <at> nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dino
> 
> Could you copy NVO3 on your comments, please?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Matthew
> 
> From: EXT Dino Farinacci <farinacci <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, 16 May 2016 at 23:31
> To: Leonard Giuliano <lenny <at> juniper.net>
> Cc: MBONED WG <mboned <at> ietf.org>, Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci <at> alcatel-lucent.com>, Benson
Schliesser <bensons <at> queuefull.net>
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] NVO3 Multicast Framework
> 
> I just have one minor comment. Regarding the second paragraph:
> 
> <PastedGraphic-2.png>
> 
> Using LISP-signal-free does not mean the head-end must do replication. The draft indicates that a
mapping system is used to decide where packets go. If the mapping database indicates that packets are
encapsulated to multicast RLOCs, or unicast RLOCs, or both in one set, so be it.
> 
> And note if there is a single multicast RLOC, then there is no replication happening at the head-end, just
(Continue reading)

Leonard Giuliano | 12 May 23:52 2016
Picon

NVO3 Multicast Framework

MBONED,

The following draft recently went through WG last call in the NVO3 working group:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework/

This doc covers multicast in data center overlay networks.  As you know, 
it is part of our charter in MBONED to provide feedback to other relevant 
working groups.  Please review and send any comments to the NVO3 WG 
mailing list (nvo3 <at> ietf.org)- all comments will be greatly appreciated by 
NVO3.

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

Picon

mboned - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 96


A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Leonard Giuliano, a Chair of the mboned working group.

---------------------------------------------------------
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

Greg Shepherd | 5 May 21:29 2016
Picon

WG Last Call?

In the room in BA we had 'consensus' indicating the following draft is ready for WG last call:


We need a response from the WG at large. Please read and provide your yes/no vote as to whether the above draft is ready for last call.

Thanks,
Greg
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
Leonard Giuliano | 1 Apr 19:48 2016
Picon

MBONED Agenda, IETF 95 Buenos Aires


MBONED preliminary agenda:

IETF 95 Buenos Aires
MBONED Agenda
Wed, Apr 6, 2016
10:00-12:30
Buen Ayre A (Held jointly with PIM WG)

Status of WG items
Chairs, 5 min

draft-zhang-mboned-multicast-service-yang-00
Zhang, 10 min

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

draft-mcbride-mboned-wifi-mcast-problem-statement
draft-perkins-intarea-multicast-ieee802
Perkins/McBride 10 min

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

internet-drafts | 21 Mar 18:03 2016
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-02.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           : Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
        Authors         : Percy S. Tarapore
                          Robert Sayko
                          Greg Shepherd
                          Toerless Eckert
                          Ram Krishnan
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-02.txt
	Pages           : 28
	Date            : 2016-03-21

Abstract:
   This document examines the use of multicast across inter-domain
   peering points. The objective is to describe the setup process for
   multicast-based delivery across administrative domains and document
   supporting functionality to enable this process.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-02

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

zhang.zheng | 17 Mar 08:00 2016
Picon

FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-mboned-multicast-service-yang-00.txt


Hi folks,

    A YANG model about multicast service has been submitted,
we hope it will benefit to the multicast service deployment.
    Would like to call your attention on this new draft. Any
comments and feedback are welcomed.

URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-mboned-multicast-service-yang-00.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-mboned-multicast-service-yang/
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-mboned-multicast-service-yang-00


Best wishes,
Sandy


internet-drafts <at> ietf.org 写于 2016/02/29 14:36:34:

>
> A new version of I-D, draft-zhang-mboned-multicast-service-yang-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Zheng(Sandy) Zhang and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:      draft-zhang-mboned-multicast-service-yang
> Revision:   00
> Title:      Multicast Service YANG
> Document date:   2016-02-28
> Group:      Individual Submission
> Pages:      15
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-
> mboned-multicast-service-yang-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-mboned-
> multicast-service-yang/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-mboned-
> multicast-service-yang-00
>
>
> Abstract:
>    This document proposes a general and all-round multicast service YANG
>    model, which provides explanations and guidelines for the deployment
>    of multicast service in all kinds of multicast scenarios.  The
>    multicast technologies include BIER multicast, PIM multicast, MPLS
>    multicast and so on.  And also, there defines several possible RPCs
>    about how to interact between multicast service model and multicast
>    device model.
>
>                                                                              
>
>
> 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.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
joel jaeggli | 13 Mar 18:27 2016

FYI - draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker - opsawg and ad review

FYI

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker/

I reviewed this for the IESG review.

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
"IETF Secretariat" | 12 Mar 00:05 2016
Picon

mboned - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 95

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)
    Wednesday, Morning Session I 1000-1230
    Room Name: Buen Ayre A size: 125
    ---------------------------------------------

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 | 7 Mar 20:25 2016
Picon

MBONED WG meeting in Buenos Aires


Please send agenda requests for MBONED in Buenos Aires to the chairs with 
the name of the topic, draft name and amount of time you would like.  We 
are currently scheduled to meet jointly with the PIM WG.

-Lenny and Greg

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

Tim Chown | 8 Feb 12:10 2016
Picon

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp (fwd)

Hi,

> On 2 Feb 2016, at 23:16, Leonard Giuliano <lenny <at> juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks Percy and Bob.  Regarding the pertinence of the back office 
> content, I guess we can agree to disagree.  I'd still be very interested 
> to hear what others think about the necessity and scope of this content 
> in this doc.

I read the draft and have a few comments.

Firstly, I agree about the references to MLD, IGMP and especially MSDP; these are not discussed in the
draft, so just focus it on PIM-SSM.

As Lenny says, why not focus it on SSM, as the model that the WG is keen to promote?  This could then be the
guidance for sites to do inter-domain SSM well, including AMT support (to the client).  As it stands,
PIM-SSM is only listed as a ‘protocol that is available’.

If you really want to make it about PIM-SM, then you need to mention that, keep MSDP, but also add
Embedded-RP. But I think there’s strong consensus in mobbed to focus on SSM.

The text itself seems good, but it is quite verbose. It could probably be anything up to 50% shorter, and
retain most of the key information. The question is whether there’s  appetite to focus it.  There’s
nothing wrong per se, it’s just quite a heavy read when the key messages/use cases could be more
succinct.  Having stuff like a security breach implementation plan included seems unnecessary detail,
for example.

A terminology section at the start might be nice.

It’s also a reminder that draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04 is now 16 years old. Somewhere on my list is a plan to
speak to Dave about an update :)
(which could also now be more focused on SSM deployment)

Tim

> 
> Comments inline:
> 
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, TARAPORE, PERCY S wrote:
> 
> <trimmed>
> | -this is an odd list of protocols.  First, MLD/IGMP don't typically come
> | 
> | into play in interdomain peering.  Second, why PIM-SSM *and* MSDP?  Why
> | 
> | not PIM-SM if mentioning MSDP?
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | Our Response: There seems to be some confusion here. The intent is not 
> | to recommend a specific list of protocols for the peering point. Rather, 
> | we say that there are many possible multicast protocols that could be 
> | used within each Administrative Domain. The transport of content via 
> | multicast over the peering point itself is independent of the choice of 
> | protocols deployed in either domain.
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | Note that we do not support PIM-SM as operators have found it to have 
> | too much overhead and it does not scale well. We can also remove MSDP 
> | from the list. So one suggestion is to change the paragraph as follows:
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | It is understood that several protocols are available by network 
> | operators for use in each AD including Protocol Independent Multicast - 
> | Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC4607], Internet Group Management 
> | Protocol (IGMP) [RFC4604], and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) 
> | [RFC4604].
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | If you have a preference for wording this differently, please let us know.
> 
> If the goal is to acknowledge various protocols are used in ADs, perhaps 
> list them all (or at least the ones most commonly used).  And maybe this 
> is a good place to recommend SSM for at least interdomain mcast- not sure 
> if it's been done in any docs yet.  Proposed text:
> 
> "It is understood that several protocols are available by network 
> operators for use in each AD including PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, MSDP, IGMP and 
> MLD.  In the case of interdomain peering, it is recommended to use only 
> SSM protocols."
> 
> | Sect 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT
> | 
> | -I struggle to grasp the purpose of AMT as a router-router tunnel.  If you
> | 
> | want a router-router tunnel, why not use GRE?  I understand it's
> | 
> | theoretically possible, but the whole point of AMT is to enable end hosts
> | 
> | to tunnel to routers bc GRE isn't a generally available option for
> | 
> | tunneling hosts to routers.  And I'm not sure I understand how to get RPF
> | 
> | to work since you can't run a unicast routing protocol through the AMT
> | 
> | tunnel.  So what would make the PIM joins in AD2 propagate towards AG?
> | 
> | Either way, AMT doesn't strike me a valid use case for mcast peering.
> | 
> | AMT is more like what you have to do in the absence of peering.
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | Our Response: Your concern is not clear. We are NOT suggesting a 
> | router-router tunnel. We are stating that an AMT tunnel is setup across 
> | a previously established peering point to transport multicast-based 
> | applications. The focus is not on "peering" as a verb; rather we are 
> | setting up an AMT tunnel across an established peering point between 2 
> | AD's. Again, we do not understand the issue. We have setup such tunnels 
> | across internal AD's and they work successfully. If you have alternate 
> | language that makes this clear, please recommend some text.
> 
> Is AG directly connected to EU over I2?  Or is I2 actually a bunch of 
> router hops?  If the former, then for all practical purposes case 3.3 is 
> the same as 3.4.  In any event, there is basically no peering going on 
> over the peering point- AMT is what you do when peering does not exist.
> 
> | Sect 3.5
> | 
> | -same comments as 3.3
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | Our Response: Same response as 3.3
> 
> I'm struggling to grasp the practical usefulness of cascading AMT tunnels.  
> If AD2 is going through the trouble of building this hierarchy of AMT 
> gateway-relays, why not use GRE instead?  Or just go native and not bother 
> with AMT if they are so worried about inefficient bw.  Do any AMT 
> implementations exist which support these types of gateway-relays??  Has 
> anyone ever actually deployed this type of AMT hierarchy???  Suggest just 
> sticking to what actually has been deployed in the real world.
> 
> 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Leonard Giuliano wrote:
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | |
> | 
> | | We would like to begin working group last call for
> | 
> | | draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp.  Please post any and all comments
> | 
> | | supporting/opposing the draft to the list by Nov 2.  This draft will not be
> | 
> | | advanced for publication unless there is sufficient response and support from
> | 
> | | the WG.  And, of course, substantive comments on the actual draft are strongly
> | 
> | | encouraged as well.
> | 
> | |
> | 
> | | Most recent version of the draft can be found here:
> | 
> | |
> | 
> | | https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-00.txt
> | 
> | |
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | _______________________________________________
> | 
> | MBONED mailing list
> | 
> | MBONED <at> ietf.org<mailto: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

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

Gmane