Subject: [MBONED] Draft Revised Mboned Charter

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:10:39 -0400

Here is a draft revised charter to simulate discussion tomorrow.

Regards
Marshall & Hiroshi

-------------
Description of Working Group:

The MBONE Deployment Working Group is a forum for coordinating
the deployment, engineering, and operation of multicast routing
protocols and procedures in the global Internet as well as other  
applications. This activity will
include, but not be limited to:

- Documenting deployment of multicast routing in IP based networks  
including the global Internet.  Develop overview documents and best  
current practice documents on multicast technologies.

- Solicit and receive regular reports on the current state of the  
deployment of
   multicast technology. Create "practice and experience" documents that
   capture the experience of those who have deployed and are deploying
   various multicast technologies.

- Based on reports and other information, provide feedback to other
   relevant working groups.

- Develop mechanisms and procedures for sharing operational
   information to aid in operation of the multicast backbones and
   interconnects.

- Update RFC 3171/BCP 51 based on experience.

- Develop a roadmap informational RFC that describes the current
   IPv4 and IPv6 IETF multicast architectures, including
   references to the relevant IETF documents and guidance for
   implementers and network operators.

  - Regularize IPv4 Multicast Address Practice
-        IANA or RIR address assignments
-        IPv4 Prefix Assignments

- Multicast management
- have a standard RFC for mtrace for IPv4 and IPv6
- update the very old troubleshooting guidelines for ASM and SSM  
multicast services
- SSMPING
- Accounting, Authentication and Authorization (AAA)
- IPTV/CDS issues
- Document necessary management capabilities (related to multicast  
management)
- Document IPTV standards and operational scenario
- Document CDS standards and operational scenario
- Publish Operator Survey
- Best Current Practices for Multicast VPNs
- IPv4 / IPv6 multicast interaction
- Automatic IP Multicast Without Explicit Tunnels (AMT)
- SSM issues
- Multicast Number Registry issues
- Port Registry
- Address Registry
- Lightweight IGMPv3/MLDv2 issues

Goals and Milestones:

April 2007   Update I-D describing IPv4 Multicast Unusable Group And  
Source Addresses
May 2007   Update IP v4 Multicast Best Current Practice
Jun 2007   Create IP v6 Multicast Best Current Practice Draft
Jun 2007    Submit Unicast-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast Addresses Draft
Jun 2007   Submit AMT Draft for Proposed Standard
Jul 2007    Submit Moving MCAST.NET into the ARPA infrastructure top  
level domain as Informational
Aug 2007   Submit IP v4 Multicast Best Current Practice for BDP
Aug 2007   Submit IP v6 Multicast Best Current Practice Draft for BCP
Aug 2007    Submit IPv4 multicast address allocation procedures IESG  
for BCP
Sep 2007    Create multicast roadmap/reference architecture document
Aug 2007    Create I-D on IPv4/IPv6 multicast co-existence issues and  
strategies for IPv4 multicast and IPv6 multicast
Nov 2007     Update IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address  
Assignments (RFC 3171/BCP 51)
Dec 2007    Create IPv4/v6 co-existence strategies as Draft
Apr 2008 Submit multicast roadmap/reference architecture document to  
IESG for Informational
Apr 2008 Submit I-D on IPv4/IPv6 multicast co-existence issues and  
strategies for IPv4 multicast and IPv6 multicast
Apr 2008 Submit IPv4/v6 co-existence strategies Draft to IESG for  
Informational

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:36:15 -0700

Folks,

> Here is a draft revised charter to simulate discussion tomorrow.

With respect to the "- Best Current Practices for Multicast VPNs"
item on the proposed revised MBONED WG charter, I think we
need to be very clear about the *real* motivations for this item.

These motivations have been spelled out by folks from cisco
during the discussion on this topic about a month ago.

>From MikeMcBride (Cisco) e-mail to mboned on 2/20:

   What can/should we do in MBONED to prevent the L3VPN WG from
   further delaying documentation of a well known and accepted
   solution while it works on incomplete options?

>From John Meylor (Cisco) e-mail to mboned on 2/21:

   So really the focus and concern of the MBONED and IETF should
   be how to move L3VPN wg forward toward standardization of the
   mVPN GRE solution.

The above makes it quite clear that such things as (a) expanding
MBONED charter to include MVPN experiece, or (b) accepting
draft-ycai-mboned-mvpn-deploy as an MBONED WG document are just
means - the real goal is to use the MBONED WG to push the L3VPN WG
to standardize draft-rosen as soon as possible.

Yakov.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:36:15 -0700

Folks,

Yakov.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:14:56 +0000

Hi,

As mentioned in the session today I would like to see an item added
to the Charter that would involve review of dynamic multicast group
address allocations.

Pekka's architecture text includes some reference in section 3.5(?)
to MADCAP and Jerome's DHCPv6 proposal
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jdurand-assign-addr-ipv6-multicast-dhcpv6-01)
and I'd like to see some discussion of this topic and work towards
a deployable solution particularly in the IPv6 space where (perhaps)
a DHCPv6 based option for an Embedded-RP based /96 could be an attractive
and relatively leightweight capability.

I could volunteer to produce a short draft describing scenarios for use,
the existing possible solutions, etc before Chicago.   Thi may also
involve checking for fresh interest in Jerome's work (Embedded-RP is 
much more widely available and deployed than it was 2 years ago).

Tim

-- 
Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:14:56 +0000

Hi,

Tim

-- 
Tim