Subject: [MBONED] Draft MBONED minutes

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:27:31 -0700

Thanks Tom T for taking minutes yesterday.  Please take a look and let us 
know if you see anything that should be added/subtracted/modified.

IETF 84 Vancouver
MBONED Agenda
Mon, July 30, 2012
9:00-11:30AM PT
Regency B

Status of WG items, recharter                    Chairs    15
draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-14                Bumgardner    20
AMT deployment experience                    Sayko        10
draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-00            Sayko        10
draft-mcbride-armd-mcast-overview-02            McBride    10
Need for Adaptation                        Taylor    10
draft-kumar-mboned-64mcast-embedded-address-00        Venaas    20
draft-zhou-mboned-multrans-path-optimization-02        Zhou  10

Meeting began at 9:00 am, Greg Shepherd and Lenny Giuliano presiding

Status
======

Lenny presented. Chart.
Small clarification on mcaddrdoc.

Recharter
---------

Transition: text proposed by Stig (chart) "Analyze the need for IPv4-IPv6 
multicast transitions solutions."

Will be posted on the list for comment.

draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-14
===================================

Greg Bumgardner. Chart on status.

Status: WGLC completed, ready for submission to IESG.

AMT deployment experience (AT&T)
=========================

Bob Sayko. Charts.

Status since initial trial with on-line gaming. Have deployed to 12 sites 
(based on -09 version, will update).

Operational issue -- routing.

Lenny: have they begun MC peering with other ISPs? Not yet -- informal 
discussions in standards venues. Anyone interested send Bob an E-mail.

Interdomain multicast BCP draft
(draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-00)
==========================

Bob Sayko again. Charts.

Greg Shepherd concerned that CDN-i Federation is passing up work central to 
their mandate. We'll see what the IESG says about this as a charter item, but 
there seems to be a failure of process.

Joel Jaeggli: CDNI has charter mandate for multicast, meaning it wouldn't be an 
IESG issue to do it in the IETF.

Two other comments in favour of MBoneD taking the work on.

draft-mcbride-armd-mcast-overview-02
=========================

Michael McBride. Charts.

Conflicting views on use of multicast in data centers in ARMD. Draft hopes 
to describe current uses and provide a taxonomy.

Comments: local multicast such as VRRP may or may not be suitable for scope. 
Tied into L2 domain size and capability.

Looking for mboned people to identify additional applications of multicast in 
data center. Would like draft to be work item.

Lenny: work does fall in charter.

Ron Bonica as individual. Really three questions to address. Took sense of room

-- not many readers, Mike to update the draft based on comments and take 
to list.

Need for Adaptation
=============

Tom Taylor. Charts.

Extensive discussion. Conclusion that Mboned is not in a position to support 
the related work in PIM but could be convinced if evidence appears that this is 
a real use case.

draft-kumar-mboned-64mcast-embedded-address-00
=================================

Stig Venaas. Charts.

Comment: Ron B as individual. Solved in unicast case by embedding in well-known 
prefix. Why not in multicast case? Stig: problems in inter-domain case.

Don't need to worry about this unless concerned with dynamic translation of 
ASM, either intra- or inter-domain.

Ron as AD: still needs to see people intending to use this before doing the 
work.

Greg: no use case for inter-domain ASM. Need to remember that source address 
also needs translation. Basically misleading the IETF as a whole if we continue 
to work on ASM solutions. Greg put question to the group. Some hands supporting 
statement that only SSM to be worked on in future. No hands for ASM, but 
qualified comment: will use what works.

Point made that home network will be locus for new multicast applications.

draft-zhou-mboned-multrans-path-optimization-02
===============================

Cathy Zhou. Charts.

Ron: part of the whole question of whether we want to work on the second 
scenario presented by Tom Taylor. Lenny agrees- this is an optimization 
for use cases that we have not yet agreed to work on.

Stig: usefulness depends on scenario -- scale a consideration.

Reprise from Tom Taylor presentation: multicast data packet translation. Note 
taken that this is work to be done, but need to refine the problem statement to 
determine exactly how the work items fall out.

Adjourned at 11:05.