Softwires
IETF 67
Alain Durand, David Ward
Note Well
•
Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for
publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any
statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an
"IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF
sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at
any time or place, which are addressed to:
–
–
–
–
–
the IETF plenary session,
any IETF working group or portion thereof,
the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or
design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices,
– the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
•
All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3978 and RFC
3979. Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or
other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of
this notice.
•
Please consult RFC 3978 for details.
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
07 mins: Admistrativa, PS update
03 mins: Report from the Interim Meeting
23 mins: Mesh
17 mins: Hubs and Spokes
3 mins: Next Steps and Phase 2
Problem Statement Status
• Rev -02 in last call
• Need to address comments and
incorporate into Rev -03
• Note that H&S seems in relatively good
shape
• Following issues address comments on
Mesh
Comments (1)
• Softwires Mesh Requirements vs L3VPN Requirements
(RFC4031)
– add text stating that softwire mesh will re-use existing/proven
multi-AF routing protocols and tunnel encaps
– add text stating that what’s new in former is a) need to advertise
IP encaps between PE routers and, b) solving the IPv4 NLRI
w/IPv6 NH case
• a) covered in info-safi draft discussed in IDR
• b) covered in v4nlri-v6/nh draft discussed in IDR
• Enumerate reachability combos
– add text stating focus is on public IPv6-over-IPv4 transit and
vice-versa; others are possible but not in charter or scope
Comments (2)
• Notion of “Islands”. Will add text stating:
– first islands can be public or private
– second islands may not necessarily be
enclosed (i.e. backdoor connections)
• Address other minor comments and fix
typos
Interim Meeting Summary
• NOTES:
– Soon to be posted, rx’ed from note-takers today
– Will be on Softwires aux site
• Reviewed current H&S Framework doc
– Massive group edits, section by section
• Discussed alternative to existing Mesh Framework doc
= accepted
– See presentation from Eric
• Reviewed Security Analysis
Interim Meeting Conclusions
• Attendees reached consensus on wording for H&S
• Edits throughout, see notes. Draft lives here:
https://carlos.homeunix.net/svn/softwire/hs-framework-l2tpv2/hs-l2tpv2.txt
• Attendees agreed on next steps for Mesh:
• Accepted issues raised in presentation by Rosen,
Scudder (via Ward)
• Accepted changes to Framework doc - see
latest draft
• Changes to BGP going to IDR WG (presented this
IETF)
draft-lefaucheur-idr-v4nlri-v6nh-00.txt
draft-pmohapat-idr-info-safi-00.txt
• Worked on issues raised in PS
• Agreed Multicast was to be worked on next: Yong
and Rosen leading
• Then Security
Presentations
•
•
•
•
Mesh
H&S
Security
Next steps
Next Steps
• Final edits on Problem Statement
• H&S Framework update
• Mesh Framework update
– Work w/ IDR on BGP extensions
– Start Multicast
– Start Security
• Security Framework updates needed
– Must include Mesh
• Want PS, Phase 0 of Framework docs through LC by next IETF
• At this point, no need to interim before Prague as Frameworks
need iterations and can be done on list