From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Jun 20 01:16:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C538421F9BF0 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:16:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.44 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2rsd9fbNCWq for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD1821F9C3F for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5K8GEZZ021972 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:16:14 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5K8GAie021904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:16:13 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:16:08 +0100 Message-ID: <078e01ce6d8e$6d091b20$471b5160$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac5tjbmKzJypekcwSviDK7YcpIFRvg== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [Status] Test mail on STATUS list - please ignore X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:16:35 -0000 From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Jun 20 04:47:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5AB21F9BF0 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.883, BAYES_00=-2.599, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=2.02] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oPzrr+MFzXRK for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E7221F9BCD for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5KBlq2M021760; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:47:52 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5KBlplk021734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:47:51 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:47:49 +0100 Message-ID: <07cb01ce6dab$fda0eba0$f8e2c2e0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac5tq3hXu5F3LoRIQXqKYFs25yHKlQ== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: status@ietf.org Subject: [Status] draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:48:00 -0000 Hi, Why only stateful? You consider using SPT, which might be computed on the router. So why do you not support the router requesting a path from the PCE? Adrian From msiva@cisco.com Thu Jun 20 05:08:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F19E21F9C19 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:08:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ILsh-sOqHKia for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A1421F9C16 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:08:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=743; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371730116; x=1372939716; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=X3hxw/464pplmRfAp0ku9aDYKlqq7o3llO6zXBGB3rI=; b=QAlKWMzRUHHTOoKafaAf4R7yLJOlI4DY0F7dqj2eWd5SwRV3gE0vaOjV 7AXN0/d8avip7N6HlDMqJ7RB4UMFwxlrjma6hH+kIAXwOIcqpbekFW5Tb UUl/ZPP/+D95251o8RnLXdm3LxrOa+apW/lxl0WfLU1U9LTRKlAdrkFpX E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApgGAInvwlGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABagwl6gju8b3wWdIIjAQEBBDo/DAQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBzIUCQgBAQQBDQUIiAa7Ro4KgQcxBwaCemEDqQWDD4FoQA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,904,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="225253349" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2013 12:08:36 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5KC8ZAd002047 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:08:35 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([169.254.3.12]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:08:33 -0500 From: "Siva Sivabalan (msiva)" To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing Thread-Index: Ac5tq3hXu5F3LoRIQXqKYFs25yHKlQAAzuLQ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:08:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <07cb01ce6dab$fda0eba0$f8e2c2e0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <07cb01ce6dab$fda0eba0$f8e2c2e0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.82.208.117] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:53:01 -0700 Cc: "status@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Status] draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:08:42 -0000 Hi Adrian, Yes, this draft is limited to stateful PCE (ietf-pce-stateful-pce) as well = as PCE-based tunnel instantiation (draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-01). We shall cover other use-cases (stateless PCE as well SR path request origi= nating from PCC) in a future version of this draft.=20 Thanks, Siva -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]=20 Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:48 AM To: draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Cc: status@ietf.org Subject: draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing Hi, Why only stateful? You consider using SPT, which might be computed on the router. So why do yo= u not support the router requesting a path from the PCE? Adrian From stbryant@cisco.com Thu Jun 20 12:06:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0562E21F99C1 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:06:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.344 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.255, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nwn27eEtgY7X for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1E521F9955 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:06:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371755169; x=1372964769; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZMuOKahmH6mH5WY0gN0uOI6XG+MMYkLco7CHsIviS5Y=; b=jWL0qZvpbE5+Tze1g69mjWWw2sE9768Xa0KW4Xjq2SFs8Ydry/HdSSBM JAXRu/55guDjznl9uL16mLZhHHqaVsrhTIJQH/TkhAcAEJ8gTNn5mElgp vNikMjtj7+V1kTEzwdDdKJlKI+G5tBLrr5vITOqcWKCx81gBRxmnN4zLC 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFALpRw1GQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABbgwmMX7ROFnSCQx99NAJZCAEBiAqbfIZ5mUaPZoNLA5dDkUSDEA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,906,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="83523323" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2013 19:06:08 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5KJ66Ru006708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:06:06 GMT Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id r5KJ650M029110; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:06:05 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <51C3529D.40700@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:06:05 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: status@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Status] Test please ignore X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:06:19 -0000 Test please ignore From stbryant@cisco.com Thu Jun 20 12:07:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E26DE21F9ACD; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:07:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9AW1P5YPMcN0; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB2621F99E9; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6146; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371755214; x=1372964814; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject; bh=IA+7nYcMs409zHiUVU8+v0ePwREaMGri/hOhtieeZFg=; b=Tb6MfTn3DjQ26P1nqNa8aI0OEpU7GVPs8+xAX3tL9RYrbFCORLmG0Pba vebrnzoaP1Ou4WMUsQhD+liz1Obsjk9UPtIInz9pLubVVD047lkbv+SNm lorCOoTRFRecqzF1u53vB6R7z2dSutAzBgKW1Zcvwa84JhaLJYunTVGJQ k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8FALpRw1GQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABbgwkxiSm2Vn0WdIIlAQUBAWsKATwWGAMCAQIBFUMBBwEBF4dzDKJpmUaNfoFLg2gDl0OBKZAbgxA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,906,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="14872298" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2013 19:06:52 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5KJ6ocM006922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:06:51 GMT Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id r5KJ6oQZ029147; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:06:50 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <51C352CA.6000307@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:06:50 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010101050308070806090301" Cc: status@ietf.org Subject: [Status] Status BOF in Berlin X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:07:11 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010101050308070806090301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit STATUS * Name: Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing (STATUS) [Was TUBAS] * Status: Approved * Description The IETF has two packet-based forwarding technologies: IP and MPLS. IP previously had a source-based routing mechanism made available through an IP Option. This mechanism has, however, not been widely used and has a number of issues that make its use inadvisable, and other mechanisms (such as RFC 1940 ) do not appear to have been implemented at all. The ability of a router to influence or control the forwarding path of an individual packet or all the packets of a given Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) is a desirable feature for a number of reasons including Label Switched Path stitching, egress protection, explicit routing, egress ASBR link selection, and backup (bypass tunnels, Remote Loop-Free Alternates) routing. This can be achieved by facilitating source-initiated selection of routes to complement the route selection provided by existing routing protocols for both inter- domain and intra-domain routes. Historically, distribution of MPLS label binding information was done by relying on label distribution protocols such as LDP and RSVP-TE. Several new proposals have been made to make use of the MPLS forwarding plane in novel but backward-compatible ways, and to install forwarding instructions using information distributed by the IGP running in the network, or through the management plane. It has been suggested that similar mechanisms might also be applied in IPv6. This BoF is intended to discuss the practicalities of various use cases and to establish a consensus around the problem space and desirability of developing solutions in this area with a view to determining whether the IETF should have a Working Group on this topic. * Responsible Area Directors: Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant * BoF Chairs: Alvaro Retana, John Scudder * * Mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status Further details can be found at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki - Stewart --------------010101050308070806090301 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

STATUS

  • Name: Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing (STATUS) [Was TUBAS]
  • Status: Approved
  • Description

The IETF has two packet-based forwarding technologies: IP and MPLS.

IP previously had a source-based routing mechanism made available through an IP Option. This mechanism has, however, not been widely used and has a number of issues that make its use inadvisable, and other mechanisms (such as RFC 1940) do not appear to have been implemented at all.

The ability of a router to influence or control the forwarding path of an individual packet or all the packets of a given Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) is a desirable feature for a number of reasons including Label Switched Path stitching, egress protection, explicit routing, egress ASBR link selection, and backup (bypass tunnels, Remote Loop-Free Alternates) routing. This can be achieved by facilitating source-initiated selection of routes to complement the route selection provided by existing routing protocols for both inter- domain and intra-domain routes.

Historically, distribution of MPLS label binding information was done by relying on label distribution protocols such as LDP and RSVP-TE.

Several new proposals have been made to make use of the MPLS forwarding plane in novel but backward-compatible ways, and to install forwarding instructions using information distributed by the IGP running in the network, or through the management plane. It has been suggested that similar mechanisms might also be applied in IPv6.

This BoF is intended to discuss the practicalities of various use cases and to establish a consensus around the problem space and desirability of developing solutions in this area with a view to determining whether the IETF should have a Working Group on this topic.

Further details can be found  at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki

- Stewart

--------------010101050308070806090301-- From narten@us.ibm.com Thu Jun 20 13:27:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE3D21F9E4F for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:27:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GMY3d4dJ5LhC for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055D311E811E for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:26:45 -0600 Received: from d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.178) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.136) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:26:42 -0600 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21EE73E4003F; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:26:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r5KKQVQN278436; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:26:37 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r5KKQSVg027441; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:26:29 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-159-14.mts.ibm.com [9.76.159.14]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r5KKQRWD027272; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:26:28 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id r5KKQQom022376; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:26:26 -0400 Message-Id: <201306202026.r5KKQQom022376@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: stbryant@cisco.com In-reply-to: <51C352CA.6000307@cisco.com> References: <51C352CA.6000307@cisco.com> Comments: In-reply-to Stewart Bryant message dated "Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:06:50 +0100." Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:26:26 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13062020-7606-0000-0000-00000CA9DC37 Cc: status@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Status] Status BOF in Berlin X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:27:22 -0000 Hi Stewart. One thing that might be worth clarifying up front. Is there already a sense at this point whether the BOF is intended to form a WG post-berlin? Or is this really exploratory, with an assumption that a lot more work would need to be done with a followup BOF in Vancouver for formal WG creation (assuming things work out, of course)? FWIW, I assume it's exploratory. In any case, clearly laying out expectations would help level-set things. Looking at the BOF wiki, there is no draft with a problem statement. Reading the description, I don't quite understand if this is "MPLS only" or whether it really is broader and impacts IP. There is an explicit mention of IPv6 in the text (which caught my attention), but I don't see right off what that means. Are there additional drafts in the works that will clarify all this? What's the thinking here? Thanks! Thomas From stbryant@cisco.com Fri Jun 21 05:28:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B07921E80FA; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 05:28:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.365 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T9LD5wZY+W7Q; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 05:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6911721E8105; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 05:28:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2629; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371817683; x=1373027283; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6SDkDld4eTbwGpi/csNFoxh+O92Al1428+U5PZEhkw4=; b=F+gOCOhC1ZQCeQ05N6dgrXIgjItFTXNa7cZuPll180mld7wH6DF5YCOQ fbeKkhrKzVTFChJrdJerhpbKUt1a5YYv7CjTJkto+Nre86qrxHUBd7ycU M5KRhcmA3VO3la49Fmgg48MGz+12PbR4NW0gj6mPwphDvgd/0NWEkKfDu A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFADZGxFGQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABbgwm9OYJ1gQAWdIIjAQEBAwE4MBABEAsSBgkWDwkDAgECATcOBg0BBwEBEId0BrxfjhWBNAeDYQOXQ5FEgxA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,912,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="155613671" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2013 12:28:00 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5LCRxeO031432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:27:59 GMT Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id r5LCRwgx017838; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:27:59 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <51C446CE.2020305@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:27:58 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Narten References: <51C352CA.6000307@cisco.com> <201306202026.r5KKQQom022376@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201306202026.r5KKQQom022376@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: status@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Status] Status BOF in Berlin X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:28:09 -0000 On 20/06/2013 21:26, Thomas Narten wrote: > Hi Stewart. > > One thing that might be worth clarifying up front. > > Is there already a sense at this point whether the BOF is intended to > form a WG post-berlin? Or is this really exploratory, with an > assumption that a lot more work would need to be done with a followup > BOF in Vancouver for formal WG creation (assuming things work out, of > course)? Hi Thomas That is one of the questions that we need to answer over the next few weeks. The technique has had a quiet resurgence in a number of companies over the past few years. One of the tasks of the BOF is to determine whether this something that the IETF should work on and if so, on what timescale we should consider a WG. I know that you know the options, but for those that do not, we could emerge in position where we think that there is more work to do and may have a BOF in Vancouver or London to form a WG. On the other hand we may leave the meeting in Berlin with the ADs effectively instructed by the community to immediately work on getting a charter approved. So I am looking for the views of the community on exactly this question. > > FWIW, I assume it's exploratory. In any case, clearly laying out > expectations would help level-set things. > > Looking at the BOF wiki, there is no draft with a problem > statement. Correct, although a number of companies have been working on a use case draft in the background. > Reading the description, I don't quite understand if this > is "MPLS only" or whether it really is broader and impacts IP. There is interest in (re)introducing a constrained form of source routing to IP. Operators that run non-MPLS networks seem to be interested in an IP approach. Others are questioning why we need anything other than MPLS. So this is a matter that we need to investigate. A well designed architecture and control plane would be agnostic to the packet forwarding/encapsulation approach. > There > is an explicit mention of IPv6 in the text (which caught my > attention), but I don't see right off what that means. Yes, but there is currently no draft uploaded, although the there has been recent discussion at conferences for both IPv6 source routing and of some interesting OAM approaches that rely on a source routing approach. I hope that the advocates of those technologies will be encouraged to write them up in drafts. > > Are there additional drafts in the works that will clarify all this? > > What's the thinking here? > > I understand that there will be more drafts in the next week or so. Stewart From Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com Mon Jun 24 06:48:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4C121F9B85 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 06:48:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KvuYFY3pmaBi for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 06:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB16C21F9B32 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 06:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AUI22870; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:48:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:47:24 +0100 Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:48:01 +0100 Received: from dfweml513-mbb.china.huawei.com ([169.254.15.169]) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.102]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 06:47:58 -0700 From: AshwoodsmithPeter To: "status@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: BOF presentation Thread-Index: Ac5w4W/wdBboaNUgQ/q7JaO/U9JpUQ== Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:47:57 +0000 Message-ID: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E209883683@dfweml513-mbb.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.193.60.127] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E209883683dfweml513mbbchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [Status] BOF presentation X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:48:14 -0000 --_000_7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E209883683dfweml513mbbchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Glad to see this topic gaining some traction. I have some simulation results related to SDN and the use of Source Routed = Tunnels. I'd be happy to present these results at the BOF as one of the use cases if= there is interest. Cheers, Peter Ashwood-Smith --_000_7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E209883683dfweml513mbbchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Glad to see this topic gaining some traction.

 

I have some simulation results related to SDN and th= e use of Source Routed Tunnels.

 

I’d be happy to present these results at the B= OF as one of the use cases if there is interest.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter Ashwood-Smith

--_000_7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E209883683dfweml513mbbchi_-- From aretana@cisco.com Mon Jun 24 21:26:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1904721F9CF1 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:26:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBEwyeGSiQEy for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F288A21F9CDF for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2756; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372134393; x=1373343993; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=mYzcTzreln/lHD6E54pUfNuOBc2BAwH0JXEp2ZS47U0=; b=cjJnPNjaiUcwQafzqVvcS3dSt3Rk4pfEcgYXQY1z6oIh0WfRGI3XsvDS zkHtlZYWtYbolUnGFGT1icstEXsscrmqrTvkQBhFmUJphSRFhWJHVgILu zJ+vGn0qYh+mGqd4iiRWxxdxjXe9+GNalTbgDkZwsP3UmzGHISunKVCV3 k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAPsayVGtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagkVEMUm2cIhGgQMWdIIlAQQdbgEMAR1WJwQbiAYMmjagP48egzphA5hskBuDEIIo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,933,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="226950532" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2013 04:26:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5P4QWfM012971 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 04:26:32 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.112]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:26:32 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "status@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Call for Presentations (status BOF) Thread-Index: AQHOcVwrnUvM6QjBqkS9YPvBsp109Q== Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 04:26:31 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.82.234.67] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94E24CAD714xmbalnx15ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF) X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 04:26:38 -0000 --_000_BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94E24CAD714xmbalnx15ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! As all of you on the list know, we will be holding a status (Stacked Tunnel= s for Source Routing) BOF in Berlin. The details are listed in the BoF pag= e: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ This message is the formal call for presentations. Given the exploratory n= ature of the BoF, we would like to explicitly request talks from network op= erators about use cases and requirements, as well as others describing pote= ntial architectures. To optimize the discussion at the meeting itself, we will be asking the pre= senters to have their slides ready several days in advance. We will determ= ine the exact date once the IETF agenda has been published and will strictl= y adhere to a "no slides, no slot" rule. Also, please post any related dra= fts as soon as possible and send a brief description to the list. Thanks! Alvaro + John --_000_BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94E24CAD714xmbalnx15ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0332012DADEF004EB0C108038032C92F@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

As all of you on the list know, we will be holding a status (Stacked T= unnels for Source Routing) BOF in Berlin.  The details are listed in t= he BoF page:  http://t= rac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/

This message is the formal call for presentations.  Given the exp= loratory nature of the BoF, we would like to explicitly request talks from = network operators about use cases and requirements, as well as others descr= ibing potential architectures.  

To optimize the discussion at the meeting itself, we will be asking th= e presenters to have their slides ready several days in advance.  We w= ill determine the exact date once the IETF agenda has been published and wi= ll strictly adhere to a "no slides, no slot" rule.  Also, please post any related drafts as soon as pos= sible and send a brief description to the list.

Thanks!

Alvaro + John
--_000_BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94E24CAD714xmbalnx15ciscoc_-- From rjs@rob.sh Mon Jun 24 23:39:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A22021F9D90 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:39:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fg-qqJSL78nk for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2001:b98:201:101::10:cafe]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DA221F9D89 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [31.55.35.172] (helo=[10.62.206.18]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UrMuk-0007XP-0B; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:39:42 +0100 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_825F5F11-8986-42F6-A32B-7F456E96FE50" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:37:13 +0100 Message-Id: References: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: "status@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF) X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 06:39:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_825F5F11-8986-42F6-A32B-7F456E96FE50 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 25 Jun 2013, at 05:26, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" = wrote: > Hi! >=20 > As all of you on the list know, we will be holding a status (Stacked = Tunnels for Source Routing) BOF in Berlin. The details are listed in = the BoF page: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ >=20 > This message is the formal call for presentations. Given the = exploratory nature of the BoF, we would like to explicitly request talks = from network operators about use cases and requirements, as well as = others describing potential architectures. =20 Hi Alvaro, I would like a slot please - topic is "Performance Engineered LSPs" and = aims to describe a number of use cases we have for explicitly routed = LSPs within IP/MPLS environments. I aim to have a -00 submitted prior to the cut-off to reference for the = BoF. Many thanks, r. --Apple-Mail=_825F5F11-8986-42F6-A32B-7F456E96FE50 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On 25 Jun 2013, at 05:26, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi!

As all of you on the list know, we will be holding a status (Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing) BOF in Berlin.  The details are listed in the BoF page:  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/

This message is the formal call for presentations.  Given the exploratory nature of the BoF, we would like to explicitly request talks from network operators about use cases and requirements, as well as others describing potential architectures.  

Hi Alvaro,

I would like a slot please - topic is "Performance Engineered LSPs" and aims to describe a number of use cases we have for explicitly routed LSPs within IP/MPLS environments.

I aim to have a -00 submitted prior to the cut-off to reference for the BoF.

Many thanks,
r.

--Apple-Mail=_825F5F11-8986-42F6-A32B-7F456E96FE50-- From Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com Tue Jun 25 04:55:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F7121F9EC3 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 04:55:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPbHXu6hehmL for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 04:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7657421F91A5 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 04:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ASV39590; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:54:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:53:41 +0100 Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:54:31 +0100 Received: from dfweml513-mbb.china.huawei.com ([169.254.15.169]) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 04:54:24 -0700 From: AshwoodsmithPeter To: Rob Shakir Thread-Topic: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF) Thread-Index: AQHOcVwrnUvM6QjBqkS9YPvBsp109ZlGb3qA///jRlk= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:54:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B662ECB184A74CBD82B76C9E20131283huaweicom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" , "status@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF) X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:55:01 -0000 --_000_B662ECB184A74CBD82B76C9E20131283huaweicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alvaro, Would like a short slot also. We'd like to share some detailed simulation s= tudies we have done on the use case of source routing and SDN and will also= submit a 00 draft on state reduction in SDN networks. Peter On Jun 25, 2013, at 2:40 AM, "Rob Shakir" > w= rote: On 25 Jun 2013, at 05:26, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" > wrote: Hi! As all of you on the list know, we will be holding a status (Stacked Tunnel= s for Source Routing) BOF in Berlin. The details are listed in the BoF pag= e: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ This message is the formal call for presentations. Given the exploratory n= ature of the BoF, we would like to explicitly request talks from network op= erators about use cases and requirements, as well as others describing pote= ntial architectures. Hi Alvaro, I would like a slot please - topic is "Performance Engineered LSPs" and aim= s to describe a number of use cases we have for explicitly routed LSPs with= in IP/MPLS environments. I aim to have a -00 submitted prior to the cut-off to reference for the BoF= . Many thanks, r. --_000_B662ECB184A74CBD82B76C9E20131283huaweicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alvaro,

Would like a short slot also. We'd like to share some detailed simulat= ion studies we have done on the use case of source routing and SDN and will= also submit a 00 draft on state reduction in SDN networks.

Peter

On Jun 25, 2013, at 2:40 AM, "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh> wrote:


On 25 Jun 2013, at 05:26, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi!

As all of you on the list know, we will be holding a status (Stacked T= unnels for Source Routing) BOF in Berlin.  The details are listed in t= he BoF page:  http://t= rac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/

This message is the formal call for presentations.  Given the exp= loratory nature of the BoF, we would like to explicitly request talks from = network operators about use cases and requirements, as well as others descr= ibing potential architectures.  

Hi Alvaro,

I would like a slot please - topic is "Performance Engineered LSP= s" and aims to describe a number of use cases we have for explicitly r= outed LSPs within IP/MPLS environments.

I aim to have a -00 submitted prior to the cut-off to reference for th= e BoF.

Many thanks,
r.

--_000_B662ECB184A74CBD82B76C9E20131283huaweicom_-- From ietf-secretariat@ietf.org Tue Jun 25 14:27:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E196911E8161; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:27:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ioUor+14R9DC; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0125011E815C; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:27:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: IETF Announcement List X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.51.p2 Message-ID: <20130625212719.9980.97226.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:27:19 -0700 Cc: status@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com Subject: [Status] New Non-WG Mailing List: status -- Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:27:21 -0000 A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: status@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/status To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status Purpose: The IETF has two packet-based forwarding technologies: IP and MPLS. IP previously had a source-based routing mechanism made available = through an IP Option. This mechanism has, however, not been widely used = and has a number of issues that make its use inadvisable, and other = mechanisms (such as RFC 1940) do not appear to have been implemented at all. The ability of a router to influence or control the forwarding path of = an individual packet or all the packets of a given Forwarding = Equivalence Class (FEC) is a desirable feature for a number of reasons = including Label Switched Path stitching, egress protection, explicit = routing, egress ASBR link selection, and backup (bypass tunnels, Remote = Loop-Free Alternates) routing. This can be achieved by facilitating = source-initiated selection of routes to complement the route selection = provided by existing routing protocols for both inter- domain and = intra-domain routes. Historically, distribution of MPLS label binding information was done by = relying on label distribution protocols such as LDP and RSVP-TE. Several new proposals have been made to make use of the MPLS forwarding = plane in novel but backward-compatible ways, and to install forwarding = instructions using information distributed by the IGP running in the = network, or through the management plane. It has been suggested that = similar mechanisms might also be applied in IPv6. A BoF has been proposed for Berlin to discuss the practicalities of = various use cases and to establish a consensus around the problem space and desirability of developing solutions in this area with a view = to determining whether the IETF should have a Working Group on this = topic. This list also serves to discuss that BoF proposal. For additional information, please contact the list administrators. From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Wed Jun 26 06:50:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAFC21E80E3 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:50:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aciw07j16f+i for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE9111E81B8 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113472.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.130]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Jun 2013 15:49:55 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113472.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:49:55 +0200 From: To: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:49:54 +0200 Thread-Topic: Re: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF) Thread-Index: Ac5ydAmrRlpFrylXQVmX1tfl+etEMw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de, status@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF) X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:50:06 -0000 Alvaro, I'd like to present MPLS OAM based on explicitely routed packets. A colleag= ue of mine, Martin Horneffer, would like to present on ECMP based loadshari= ng across disjoint networks and on QoS based explicit routes. We'll of cour= se share a single operator slot. We both work for Deutsche Telekom. Regards, Ruediger ############# Hi! As all of you on the list know, we will be holding a status (Stacked Tunnel= s for Source Routing) BOF in Berlin. The details are listed in the BoF pag= e: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ This message is the formal call for presentations. Given the exploratory n= ature of the BoF, we would like to explicitly request talks from network op= erators about use cases and requirements, as well as others describing pote= ntial architectures. To optimize the discussion at the meeting itself, we will be asking the pre= senters to have their slides ready several days in advance. We will determ= ine the exact date once the IETF agenda has been published and will strictl= y adhere to a "no slides, no slot" rule. Also, please post any related dra= fts as soon as possible and send a brief description to the list. Thanks! Alvaro + John From bruno.decraene@orange.com Wed Jun 26 08:52:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F5A21E8087 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7XXSr18XyzKI for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C81121E8063 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D87762DC799; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:52:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.183]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B8777238048; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:52:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:52:01 +0200 From: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "John G. Scudder" Thread-Topic: Call for Presentations (status BOF) Thread-Index: AQHOcVwrnUvM6QjBqkS9YPvBsp109ZlII5LA Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:52:00 +0000 Message-ID: <11637_1372261921_51CB0E21_11637_1226_1_a9d46f75-e364-4a38-bcc1-d800de6341ea@PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a9d46f75e3644a38bcc1d800de6341eaPEXCVZYH02corporateadro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.5.21.113319 Cc: LITKOWSKI Stephane DTF/DERX , "status@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF) X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:52:08 -0000 --_000_a9d46f75e3644a38bcc1d800de6341eaPEXCVZYH02corporateadro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, John, May I have a slot to present a use case on FRR ? We will likely not need 15 minutes. 10 minutes looks enough. Thanks, Regards, Bruno, St=E9phane From: status-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:status-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Alvaro Retana (aretana) Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:27 AM To: status@ietf.org Subject: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF) Hi! As all of you on the list know, we will be holding a status (Stacked Tunnel= s for Source Routing) BOF in Berlin. The details are listed in the BoF pag= e: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ This message is the formal call for presentations. Given the exploratory n= ature of the BoF, we would like to explicitly request talks from network op= erators about use cases and requirements, as well as others describing pote= ntial architectures. To optimize the discussion at the meeting itself, we will be asking the pre= senters to have their slides ready several days in advance. We will determ= ine the exact date once the IETF agenda has been published and will strictl= y adhere to a "no slides, no slot" rule. Also, please post any related dra= fts as soon as possible and send a brief description to the list. Thanks! Alvaro + John ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_a9d46f75e3644a38bcc1d800de6341eaPEXCVZYH02corporateadro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alvaro, John,

 <= /p>

May I have= a slot to present a use case on FRR ?

 = ;

We will li= kely not need 15 minutes. 10 minutes looks enough.

 = ;

Thanks,

Regards,

Bruno, St= =E9phane

 = ;

 = ;

From: status-b= ounces@ietf.org [mailto:status-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:27 AM
To: status@ietf.org
Subject: [Status] Call for Presentations (status BOF)

 

Hi!

 

As all of you on the list k= now, we will be holding a status (Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing) BOF i= n Berlin.  The details are listed in the BoF page:  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/=

 

This message is the formal = call for presentations.  Given the exploratory nature of the BoF, we w= ould like to explicitly request talks from network operators about use cases and requirements, as well as others describing potential a= rchitectures.  

 

To optimize the discussion = at the meeting itself, we will be asking the presenters to have their slide= s ready several days in advance.  We will determine the exact date once the IETF agenda has been published and will strictly adher= e to a "no slides, no slot" rule.  Also, please post any rel= ated drafts as soon as possible and send a brief description to the list.

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro + John

______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_a9d46f75e3644a38bcc1d800de6341eaPEXCVZYH02corporateadro_--