David Lamparter | 20 Oct 22:40 2014
Picon

dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

Hi rtgwg,

freshly submitted & soliciting for feedback are the following drafts:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/?include_text=1

These are distilled version of the SADR stuff that has been coming in
from homenet; they describe the hop-by-hop forwarding behaviour
independent of the dynamic routing protocol du jour.  The first one
describes general considerations of adding things ("extra qualifiers")
to destination longest-match, the second one does the specifics for
source match.  They're derived from baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing, and
are essentially write-ups of e-mail threads with Fred.  (Thanks!)

These are -00, so there's a lot of things to be fixed still (I'm not
even sure whether this should be 2 drafts or 1, and some bits should be
moved from -dst-src to -extra-qualifiers if it stays separate.)

I believe rtgwg is the "best" wg for this, looking at the charter this
fits "Enhancements to hop-by-hop distributed routing", though admittedly
it's neither FRR nor LFA.  I'll happily accept a redirect to another wg
(6man? homenet?) if that's deemed more appropriate.

Last but not least, I'd like to request a slot at the IETF 91 rtgwg
meeting to present these drafts.

Cheers & Thanks in advance for feedback,

-David
(Continue reading)

Uma Chunduri | 16 Oct 01:31 2014
Picon

FW: New Version Notification for draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-00.txt

Dear RTGWG,

Your comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

--
Uma C.

-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts <at> ietf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:22 PM
To: Uma Chunduri; Jeff Tantsura; Uma Chunduri; Jeff Tantsura
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Uma Chunduri and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures
Revision:	00
Title:		Extended procedures and considerations for evaluating Loop-Free Alternates
Document date:	2014-10-15
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		8
URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-00

Abstract:
   This document provide few clarifications and extended procedures to
   IP Fast Reroute using Loop-Free Alternates as defined in RFC 5286.

(Continue reading)

IETF Secretariat | 15 Oct 19:49 2014
Picon

Milestones changed for rtgwg WG

Changed milestone "Submit Remote LFA (link protection) for publication
as Proposed Standard", set state to active from review, accepting new
milestone.

Changed milestone "Submit Document on Operational Experience of using
BGP in a Data Center for publication as Informational", set state to
active from review, accepting new milestone.

Changed milestone "Submit Operational Management for LFA for
publication as Proposed Standard", set state to active from review,
accepting new milestone.

Changed milestone "Submit Remote LFA (node protection) for publication
as Proposed Standard", set state to active from review, accepting new
milestone.

Changed milestone "Submit MIB for IP Fast-Reroute for publication as
Proposed Standard", set state to active from review, accepting new
milestone.

URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/charter/
IETF Secretariat | 15 Oct 19:44 2014
Picon

Milestones changed for rtgwg WG

Changed milestone "Submit Composite-Link Requirements to IESG for
publication as Informational", set due date to March 2015 from
November 2012, added draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases to milestone.

Changed milestone "Submit initial Internet Draft on Multicast IP Fast
Reroute Architecture", set due date to March 2015 from November 2012,
added draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr to milestone.

Changed milestone "Submit Composite-Link Framework to IESG for
publication as Informational", set due date to March 2015 from
November 2012, added draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework to milestone.

Changed milestone "Submit specification on Advanced IP Fast Reroute
mechanism to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard", set due date
to July 2015 from April 2013, added
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture,
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm to milestone.

URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/charter/
Alvaro Retana (aretana | 11 Oct 13:28 2014
Picon

IETF 91 Agenda Items (rtgwg)

Hi!

The preliminary agenda for Honolulu was posted yesterday (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.txt), and rtgwg is scheduled to meet as follows:
WEDNESDAY, November 12, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Coral 2 RTG rtgwg Routing Area Working Group WG
From here on the dates look like this:
  • 2014-10-27 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) 
  • 2014-10-27 (Monday): Draft Working Group agendas due 
  • 2014-11-03 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due 
Note that the ID submission cut-off and the Draft WG Agendas are due on the same day.  Please reply to this email with any requests by Friday Oct/24 to be included in the Draft WG Agenda.  Note that the ID MUST have already been published to be considered.

For a draft to be considered for the Final  WG Agenda:
  1. It MUST have been published already.
  2. The authors SHOULD start a discussion on the list highlighting the main points of the draft (don’t just send a copy of the announcement and/or paste the abstract).
  3. Slides MUST be provided to the chairs by EOD on Monday Nov/10.
We will prioritize existing WG items first, followed by work explicitly identified in the WG charter.  Other items may be considered if we have time; we will give preference to items for which there has been a discussion on the list on a first-come basis.  As we recently discussed on the list, the Charter was modified:  http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/charter/   Jeff and I are working on updating the milestones.

Thanks!

Alvaro + Jeff
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
The IESG | 4 Oct 01:39 2014
Picon

WG Action: Rechartered Routing Area Working Group (rtgwg)

The Routing Area Working Group (rtgwg) working group in the Routing Area
of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please
contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.

Routing Area Working Group (rtgwg)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active WG

Chairs:
  Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura <at> ericsson.com>
  Alvaro Retana <aretana <at> cisco.com>

Assigned Area Director:
  Alia Atlas <akatlas <at> gmail.com>

Mailing list
  Address: rtgwg <at> ietf.org
  To Subscribe: rtgwg-request <at> ietf.org
  Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/

Charter:

The Routing Area working group (RTGWG) is chartered to provide a
venue to discuss, evaluate, support and develop proposals for 
new work in the Routing Area and may work on specific small topics
that do not fit with an existing working group. 

Options for handling new work include:

- Directing the work to an existing WG (including RTGWG)
- Developing a proposal for a BoF.
- Developing a charter and establishing consensus for a new WG.  This
option will primarily be used with fairly mature and/or well-defined
efforts.
- Careful evaluation, leading to deferring or rejecting work.

It is expected that the proposals for new work will only include items
which
are not aligned with the work of other WGs or that may span multiple WGs.
The Area Directors and WG Chairs can provide guidance if there is any
doubt whether a topic should be discussed in RTGWG.

A major objective of the RTGWG is to provide timely, clear
dispositions of new efforts. Where there is consensus to take
on new work, the WG will strive to quickly find a home for it.
Reconsideration of proposals which have failed to gather consensus
will be prioritized behind proposals for new work which have not
yet been considered. In general, requests for reconsideration
should only be made once a proposal has been significantly
revised.

If RTGWG decides that a particular topic should be addressed by
a new WG, the chairs will recommend the work to the Routing ADs
with a summary of the evaluation.  The Routing ADs may then choose
to follow the normal IETF chartering process (potential BoF, IETF-wide
review of the proposed charter, etc.).

Guiding principles for evaluation of new work by RTGWG will include:

   1. Providing a clear problem statement for proposed new work.

   2. Prioritizing new efforts to manage the trade-offs between urgency,
       interest, and available resources in the Routing Area.

   3. Looking for commonalities among ongoing efforts.
       Such commonalities may indicate the need to develop more
       general, reusable solutions.  

   4. Ensuring appropriate cross-WG and cross-area review.

   5. Protecting the architectural integrity of the protocols developed
       in the Routing Area and ensuring that work has significant
applicability.

RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an
existing working group. An example of a small topic is a draft that might
otherwise be AD-sponsored but which could benefit from the review and
consensus that RTGWG can provide.  

RTGWG may work on larger topics, but must be explicitly rechartered to
add the topic.  The specific larger topics that RTGWG is currently
chartered to work on:

  * Enhancements to hop-by-hop distributed
    routing (e.g., multicast, LDP-MPLS, unicast routing) related to
    fast-reroute and loop-free convergence. A specific goal of
    fast-reroute mechanisms is to provide up to complete coverage when
    the potential failure would not partition the network. All work in
    this area should be specifically evaluated by the WG in terms of
    practicality and applicability to deployed networks.

  * Routing-related YANG models that are not appropriate for other RTG
working
    groups. 

The working group milestones will be updated as needed to reflect the
proposals currently being worked on and the target dates for their
completion. 

Milestones:
  Nov 2012 - Submit Composite-Link Requirements to IESG for publication
as Informational
  Nov 2012 - Submit initial Internet Draft on Multicast IP Fast Reroute
Architecture
  Nov 2012 - Submit Composite-Link Framework to IESG for publication as
Informational
  Apr 2013 - Submit specification on Advanced IP Fast Reroute mechanism
to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
Benoit Claise | 2 Oct 18:04 2014
Picon

Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-04: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial point/

RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an
existing
working group. An example of a small topic is a draft that might
otherwise be
AD-sponsored but which could benefit from the review and consensus that
RTGWG
can provide.

Not sure "small" is the right adjective.
In OPSAWG, we had small topics that became big topics (example: 3 CAPWAP
documents, multiple EMAN documents that triggered the EMAN WG creation,
IEEE/IETF MIB relationship RFC). I would remove "small", which equates to
"non important"
Benoit Claise | 2 Oct 16:53 2014
Picon

Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-03: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-03: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Adrian's proposal actually made it to the latest proposed charter,
let me file a BLOCK.
> Just noticed something we should add:
> RTGWG would be a really good home for routing-related YANG models that
> are not specifically covered by other RTG working groups,
The sentence above is a good addition.
> and for generic
> routing YANG models.
But how is this different than "routing-related YANG models"?
I believe having those two categories adds to the confusion. Maybe
because I don't understand the difference.

Once this clarification is done, I support RTGWG. It's actually similar
to OPSAWG.

Regards, Benoit

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial point/

RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an
existing
working group. An example of a small topic is a draft that might
otherwise be
AD-sponsored but which could benefit from the review and consensus that
RTGWG
can provide.

Not sure "small" is the right adjective.
In OPSAWG, we had small topics that became big topics (example: 3 CAPWAP
documents, multiple EMAN documents that triggered the EMAN WG creation,
IEEE/IETF MIB relationship RFC). I would remove "small", which equates to
"non important"
Spencer Dawkins | 2 Oct 16:33 2014
Picon

Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-03: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-03: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As a survivor of a few proposals being Dispatched in RAI, I'm glad to see
RTG adopting a similar model for proposal evaluation.
Bhuvanesh Rajput | 1 Oct 17:09 2014

Requesting Comments about the Draft : draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-requirements-00.txt

Hi,

 

Dynamic path selections draft is well written to have application based flexibility in the routing.

 

Seek clarification on following

 

-          Application based traffic offload/routing requirement most often comes from enterprise segment, never seen from service providers.

Since BGP is proposed in the draft to achieve application based routing but BGP is most often used between Autonomous systems (between Service providers and Enterprise and Service Providers), Why widely accepted and deployed IGPs (OSPF and EIGRP) cannot work to achieve proposed functionality? If IGPs are supported to have application based routing it will great value add for large Enterprises segment without any major change in existing routing.

 

-          Draft proposes static configuration to define application profile, how to achieve the routing for the applications dynamic in nature and use dynamic port numbers etc. ?

 

 

Regards

Bhuvanesh Rajput

 

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
Barry Leiba | 1 Oct 15:34 2014
Picon

Barry Leiba's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the comment that "optional" should be removed from the first
sentence.

Gmane