From bclaise@cisco.com Fri Jun 14 02:56:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CAC21F9BA9; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:56:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.566, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, 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 yTVUapI3+T3T; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04E021F9B9D; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:56:36 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5E9uYFj005902; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:56:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5E9uD7X022568; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:56:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51BAE8BD.70802@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:56:13 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080107010101060802070700" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:22:50 -0700 Cc: "ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [OPS-AREA] OPS/LMAP chair positions X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:56:41 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080107010101060802070700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, [bcc'ed a couple mailing lists. You might be receiving duplicates] Joel and I are looking for potential WG chair candidates. 1. Specifically for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP ). At this stage, LMAP is still a proposed WG, but it goes through the process, and might become a WG before the IETF in Berlin. 2. This is also a good opportunity to create a pool of candidates interested in chairing OPS WGs in the future. We might even consider training this group if there is some interest. RFC 2418 might help as background information. Alternatively, if you have questions/comments, don't hesitate to reach out to Joel and I at "ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" Regards, Joel and Benoit --------------080107010101060802070700 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all,

[bcc'ed a couple mailing lists. You might be receiving duplicates]

Joel and I are looking for potential WG chair candidates.
1. Specifically for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP).
At this stage, LMAP is still a proposed WG, but it goes through the process, and might become a WG before the IETF in Berlin.
2. This is also a good opportunity to create a pool of candidates interested in chairing OPS WGs in the future.
We might even consider training this group if there is some interest.

RFC 2418 might help as background information.
Alternatively, if you have questions/comments, don't hesitate to reach out to Joel and I at "ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" <ops-ads@tools.ietf.org>

Regards, Joel and Benoit
--------------080107010101060802070700-- From stbryant@cisco.com Fri Jun 21 07:39:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D2521F9BDB; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, 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 faByYFTegINx; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:39:09 -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 B7B8C11E8193; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8857; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371825548; x=1373035148; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=SZPcSEOoxK3ukKiU5hTJ1TDWrdeF6yPnSvZladOuWK4=; b=ZaPNa+t/BTz+JKpqtEOMviC0zBmDJ6M81l9xuTn5/uQrsZIVLlAClnsW Ovls2DwBkrjSKFtWu7gS4H9F1dTReCNgUJUYhtzp2syr9mG/9fla9XWR+ tYm+y1pSqJ7jwGmhP+vNqtXrAxVzeoO7w/Db6GXAVbNMTR/LZKLEidRh/ A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEFAK1kxFGQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABbgwkxiSm2VYECFnSCIwEBAQQBAQFrCgEMBBwDAQIKFg8JAwIBAgEVHwcCCAYBDAEFAgEBF4dzDLxCjX6BOhEHBoNbA5dDgSmQG4MQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,913,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="14893308" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2013 14:39:06 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5LEd4u6025782 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:39:04 GMT Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id r5LEd3hm025510; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:39:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <51C46587.3020907@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:39:03 +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: isis-wg , "ospf@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" , 6man@ietf.org References: <51C352CA.6000307@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <51C352CA.6000307@cisco.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <51C352CA.6000307@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080101000407060509050103" Cc: ops-area@ietf.org Subject: [OPS-AREA] Fwd: Status BOF in Berlin X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:39:14 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080101000407060509050103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This BOF touches on technology of interest to each of the working groups on the "To" list. I apologies to those that have already seen this through circulation to routing-discussion, but I know that not everyone is subscribed there. The list for discussion of this topic is status@ietf.org - Stewart -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Status BOF in Berlin Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:06:50 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com To: routing-discussion@ietf.org CC: status@ietf.org 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 --------------080101000407060509050103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This BOF touches on technology of interest to each of the
working groups on the "To" list.

I apologies to those that have already seen this through
circulation to routing-discussion, but I know that not
everyone is subscribed there.

The list for discussion of this topic is status@ietf.org

- Stewart

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Status BOF in Berlin
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:06:50 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
To: routing-discussion@ietf.org
CC: status@ietf.org


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



--------------080101000407060509050103--