Subject: [MBONED] MBONED draft mins

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:02:57 -0700

Below are the mtg mins from yesterday.  Please review while it's still 
fresh in your mind for accuracy and let us know if you see something that 
should be changed.  And thanks to Percy, for taking excellent notes.

MBONE Session
IETF 90
9-11:30AM
July 24, 2014

1. Chairs: Lenny
a. Note Well
b. Status of Agenda
c. Status of Active WG Docs:
i. Geo-distribution: JeffreyZhang- need to address some comments received 
from Toerless
ii. Multrans - Quiet so far
iii. Data Center - Mike to talk about this.
iv. Mtracev2 Also some comments received and perhaps this is ready for 
last call (Lenny)? Pretty extensive revisions from IESG so another round 
of changes needed before WG Last Call. Lenny: Make changes and ask for 
comments from list & then make ready for Last Call.

d. AMT Update:
i. In IESG for long time with lots of comments.
ii. Joel - One issue to resolve: concerns about selection of algorithms by 
Security area; Do need to do to explain to them.
iii. Lenny - Need to get original authors to clarify?
iv. Joel - Yes that would be good. Need to be gentle but firm to point out 
history.
v. Lenny - what if original authors do not remember history?
vi. Joel - It could be worked out as the Transport problem was worked out 
in same way with Security. Issue is with preventing people from injecting 
their own signaling. Needs to be resolved.
vii. Lenny - will work to contact original authors

2. Multicast cdni - Percy
a. 6th version
b. Need to change title draft-ietf-mboned-multicast  version 0.0
c. PT- started Vancouver 2012
d. New are
i. Provisioning Guidelines
ii. Gap we need to develop draft on optimal AMT
iii. Billing guidelines
iv. Logging Guidelines (usage logs, security logs, other logs: access, 
app, syslpog)
v. Settlement Guidelines (aggregation, collection, transport, billing and 
reimbursement)
e. Next Steps
i. Complete section 4
ii. Comments
iii. Goal complete by 1Q15
f. Comments questions
i. How is this different from unicast (it covers the specifics of 
multicast with respect to ADs)? Look at CDNI WG work to perhaps point to 
as appropriate.

3. Multicast in Data Center (MikeMcBride):
a. Per Charter: Create practice documents for various multicast 
experiences.
b. Joel: OK as part of charter
c. Motivation : Emails opinions on use of multicast in DCs?:
i. Document multicast use in DC as part of MBONE work
ii. Goal: Find unique aspects of Multicast use in DCs & describe here.
d. Multicast Apps used in DCs:
i. Windows Media servers
ii. Publish
iii. Marjet
iv. IPTV
v. VRRP
vi. Overlays
vii. Etc:
viii. How are they being used & do they scale well?
e. Challenges:
i. Broadcasts when igmp snooping
ii. VRRP chatty heartbeats
iii. Overlay
iv. VM Scaling
v. Others?
f. Request for MBONE:
i. Seeking co-author & feedback
g. Percy: Data Centers moving to NFV/VNF environment. How does Multicast 
use fit in with NFV?
h. Gorry: consider WAN use in DC for Multicast?
i. Hitoshi: Do we need to address WAN area here?
j. Gorry: Given virtualization, yes this makes sense
k. Hitoshi: Goal could be providing guideline so maybe look at the revived 
draft again to clarify? Specifically for IPv6 issues
l. Gorry & Joel: Scaling issues may not exist for this topic. So MBONE can 
offer useful advice on scaling properties?? Taking into account 
sensitivity of application - find list of do's & don'ts!!
m. Gorry: Not multicast problem per se; rather use of multicast is one way 
to resolve the issue!! Joel agrees.
n. Mike to update I-D

4. Traceroute for MVPNs (Bob Kebler):
a. Current Version description - where Mtrace does not work (list shown)
b. Lenny: Does GTM have same problem??
c. Robert: Yes
i. What Mtrace can do (description of what is new)
ii. Error Conditions
iii. Next Steps - will revise draft to address extensive comments from 
Eric Rosen, then seek WG Adoption
d. Hitoshi - Meaning of Augmented Response blocks??
e. Robert - additional info than standard response blocks; additional 
clarifications between Hitoshi & Robert. No desire to change Mtrace v2.
f. Lenny - Which WG is appropriate? Would other L3VPN WG be comfortable 
with this in MBONE? Robert ? Yes
g. Lenny - Merging this into existing Mtrace I-D or start new work? Robert 
- leave current I-D alone & start new one

5. Multicast Receiver Access Control (Bill Atwood):
a. Trust Relationships (Unicast & Multicast)
b. Use NSP Representative Model
c. Assumptions
d. Problem Size - NSP & EU interaction
e. App Level & Network Level interactions
f. Two Solutions described
g. IGMP drafts could not address this issue
h. Securing IGMP/MLD
i. Goals: List requirements for SPs to interact with CPs & Specify 
architecture
j. Requirements list for application constraints & interaction constraints
k. Building blocks - use IETF protocols
l. Architecture & Environment & Enforcement Points ? Results
m. Four Documents issued with more to come; request for liaison to PIM WG 
on this
n. Mike - Why liaison? Bill - Need clarification from PIM WG for 
permission to proceed. Joel - this is not a formal liaison; just 
interaction needed between WGs. Toerless - Good to get PIM opinion & need 
more Use Cases to motivate this work.
o. Stig - how easy to deploy this? Would it be used widely? Bill - could 
be used at any level including households.

6. Lenny - Open Discussion:
a. Stig:
i. Changes in Routing Area may impact Multicast
ii. PIM & MBONE have similar work & common participants but WGs are in 
different areas. So maybe have PIM & MBONE have a shared 2.5 hour session. 
Lenny - this is great idea as strong overlap. But time may be issue as not 
all sessions may be done in 2.5 hours. Joel - Good idea to do this; allows 
more coordinated activity. Mike - Supports this idea.
Question on MULTRANS status? Lenny - interest waning on MULTRANS; no 
strong consensus on how to develop problem statement. No major interest. 
Joel - many use cases but not enough business support behind them; hence 
not compelling enough to advance work.
Tina - thinks there may be business cases to justify from some SPs.
Joel - still not sufficient motivation.
Tina - wants to know about details as to why no interest.
Lenny - there was discussion on this with not much support for moving 
forward.
Tina - what about problem statement itself.
Lenny - discussions on Toerless' solution proposal seemed to make problem 
statement moot. Suggest to bring this up again on the list and see what 
responses received.
Joel - no broad consensus to advance this from February 2013 discussions.
Lenny - bring this up again on mailing list with Toerless proposal.
Mike - similar question; what is status of Multimob.
Lenny - moved to separate WG.
Joel - Multimob is being used in industry.
Stig - have more generic problem statements & then think as to how to 
advance work.

iii. Lenny - Interest in Internet Multicast seems to be at an all time 
low, yet the need is arguably greater than ever.  And the tools are 
finally available in production to solve the most long-standing problems 
(i.e., AMT).  How to jumpstart interest in Internet Mcast again?  World 
Mcast Day?
Toerless - Can we bring in all our ideas in and discuss what best way to 
proceed? How widely is Internet Multicast being used right now? Can we get 
marketing info to justify work?
Joel - AMT can build Multicast over Unicast; can characterize what 
happened in MBONE and see what role it plays in this  "Getting right" 
topology resulted in lost participants. Experiments are easy (IETF) but 
implementation is hard. So MBONE should move forward accordingly.
Stig - last mile may be an issue??
Joel - if we provide right technology, content delivery will take care of 
itself.
Stig - cases in Europe where millions watch events but maybe not on 
Internet.
Toerless - find pool of folks providing AMT capacity and then provide 
experiment to deliver content?? Engage MANET besides MBONE??
7. Lenny - Meeting Adjourned!!