Subject: [netlmm] #65: Will QoS, multicast, and dormant mode/paging always be out of scope?

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 06:49:01 -0000

#65: Will QoS, multicast, and dormant mode/paging always be out of scope?
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  major                         |   Milestone:  milestone2              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  1.0                     
 Keywords:  REQ draft                     |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Pekka Savola writes:

   1) section 2 rules out of scope from initial goals discussion "QoS,
      multicast, and dormant mode/paging".  Is it the intention that these
      will appear in future revisions of the goals I-D, or that they will
 be
      out of scope?  I don't care myself so much about the other two, but
      multicast must continue to work without modifications in NetLMM
 domain.
      I'm not sure what the requirements actually are -- it might be OK
 that
      link-local multicast need not be forwarded out of the link, but
 global or
      site-scoped multicast should work at the very least.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/65>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>

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

---

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 06:50:48 -0000

#65: Will QoS, multicast, and dormant mode/paging always be out of scope?
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                        |      Status:  closed                  
  Priority:  major                         |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:  invalid                       |    Keywords:  REQ draft               
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * resolution:  => invalid
  * status:  new => closed

Comment:

 These are intended to be covered during rechartering after the initial
 base protocol is complete. If there is need for explict goals with respect
 to this functionality, a goals document will be part of the rechartering.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 13:36:17 +0300 (EEST)

> to this functionality, a goals document will be part of the rechartering.

Has there been WG consensus about this?  Have ADs been consulted?

The WG charter pages don't say that it's OK to break multicast in 
NETLMM domains.  As the charter defines a loose 'contract' between the 
WG and the rest of the IETF, I'm not sure if this is a decision that 
even the WG can make on its own; an IETF-wide rechartering (WG review) 
might be sufficient.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Tom Wan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:54:13 +0800

I support that  multicast and QOS should be added to the charter.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] #65: Will QoS, multicast, and dormant mode/paging 
always be out of scope?

> The WG charter pages don't say that it's OK to break multicast in NETLMM 
> domains.  As the charter defines a loose 'contract' between the WG and the 
> rest of the IETF, I'm not sure if this is a decision that even the WG can 
> make on its own; an IETF-wide rechartering (WG review) might be 
> sufficient.
>
> --

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 02:41:21 -0700

It seems to be common for multicast to be considered later in IETF WGs 
working on routing issues. For example, look at Section 3.30 in RFC 3031. 
Here is a published RFC on the official IETF MPLS architecture that says 
that multicast will be considered later! I wonder if they ever did consider 
it?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] #65: Will QoS, multicast, and dormant mode/paging 
alwaysbe out of scope?

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 02:44:14 -0700

Tom,

QoS can be handled as part of the data plane configuration. I don't want to 
get into any details right now, but this is one reason why we declared it 
out of scope until the base protocol is defined. The base protocol is 
intended to have a configurable data plane, and if we build in a particular 
QoS mechanism it will exclude others. Ultimately, I see Phase 2 of the 
NETLMM WG coming up with some standards track drafts that describe how 
particular data plane forwading mechanisms are used with NETLMM, and that 
will include QoS.

Regarding multicast, see my previous reply to Pekka's comment.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Wan" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] #65: Will QoS, multicast,and dormant mode/paging 
always be out of scope?

>> domains.  As the charter defines a loose 'contract' between the WG and 
>> the rest of the IETF, I'm not sure if this is a decision that even the WG 
>> can make on its own; an IETF-wide rechartering (WG review) might be 
>> sufficient.
>>
>> --

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 15:33:33 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 29 May 2006, James Kempf wrote:
> Here is a published RFC on the official IETF MPLS architecture that says that 
> multicast will be considered later! I wonder if they ever did consider it?

I'm not sure how well MPLS compares to a bidirectional tunneling 
proposal (remember, I'm not requesting that the packet delivery be 
optimal, it just needs to work).  But let's look a bit more recent 
examples.  For example, TRILL and SHIM6 don't break multicast.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 06:52:57 -0700

I think the DT is going to consider multicast. One reason I think it would 
be prudient to wait is because the treatment of multicast might be different 
depending on the data plane forwarding. If the base protocol needs some 
enhancement, then we can put something in.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] #65: Will QoS, multicast, and dormant mode/paging 
alwaysbe out of scope?

>> that multicast will be considered later! I wonder if they ever did 
>> consider it?
>
> I'm not sure how well MPLS compares to a bidirectional tunneling proposal 
> (remember, I'm not requesting that the packet delivery be optimal, it just 
> needs to work).  But let's look a bit more recent examples.  For example, 
> TRILL and SHIM6 don't break multicast.
>
> --