[00:03:37] elisa.bellagamba joins the room [00:03:47] hide.zebra joins the room [00:03:55] CCAMP Session Started [00:04:07] No Agenda change requests [00:09:23] AdrianFarrel joins the room [00:15:41] Glenn Parsons joins the room [00:16:43] weihongbo joins the room [00:17:20] Adrian,Hello [00:18:30] Daniel,Could you continue relay the disccussion? [00:19:56] Hello Wei, we will have a Jabber Scribe for you. She is presenting. I'll try to fill in until she is back. [00:20:13] Final Slide: Next steps. [00:21:13] OK,Many Thanks... [00:21:54] Deborah: Any questions or comments. [00:22:06] George: Since the OAM in MPLS-TP has wider applicability. I am wondering why we are constraining this for just MPLS-TP and not use it in a wider scope. [00:26:56] Glenn Parsons leaves the room [00:26:56] weihongbo leaves the room [00:26:56] AdrianFarrel leaves the room [00:26:56] LouBerger leaves the room [00:26:56] Daniel King leaves the room [00:41:22] weihongbo joins the room [00:42:00] We all Discoonect Just Now... [00:42:20] Elisa,Could you Relay the disccussion?Please... [00:42:59] yes, hello [00:43:19] dimitri volunteered to do the rfc4872 bis [00:44:01] Thank you [00:44:06] ---------------- presentation 4 [00:44:11] Dan Li [00:44:25] "lmp behavior negotiation" [00:45:23] LouBerger joins the room [00:46:01] problem statement: new LMP behavior and protocol ext being defined, no procedure to discover LMP cap of peer [00:46:49] --> new behavior config [00:47:10] new c-type 3 = enhanced behavior config [00:47:19] describing the config obj [00:49:12] very simple draft, but hoping that the working group will accept it as WG draft [00:50:43] lou agree and thinks it could be adopted but after some more discussion [00:50:46] on the list [00:50:54] ----------------------------- presentation 5 [00:50:58] D. Ceccarelli [00:51:14] "LMP extensions for test messages" [00:51:58] composed by 2 items [00:52:07] link verification [00:52:11] and trace monitoring [00:53:51] showing the 2 new objects [00:58:04] next steps: keep on monitoring g.7714.1, reflect OTN capabilities [00:58:12] no questions [00:58:37] lou --> bring LMP in the OTN fw ID makes a lot of sense [00:58:48] --------------------- presentation 6 [00:58:51] Fatai [00:59:15] " lmp extensions for g.709" [00:59:47] requirements: correlating of TS granularity [01:00:22] --> the CP must correlate the TS granularity that both ends of a link support [01:01:05] requirement 2 --> equipment can support only LO odu [01:01:22] (only some LO ODU) [01:01:38] satoru.matsushima joins the room [01:02:05] showing an example of LMP extensions and messages exhanges [01:03:23] open discussions: usa CP to correlate the TS type [01:04:24] CP negotioation [01:06:55] AdrianFarrel joins the room [01:10:07] next steps: refine it according to feedbacks, keep consisten with the fwk draft [01:10:11] no questions [01:10:33] ------------------------------------------ pres 7 [01:10:36] attila [01:10:48] "hop configuration objects for oam" [01:11:39] proposal: 2 options [01:11:48] 1- new hop_attributes tlv [01:12:03] 2- new hop_attributes sub-object [01:12:17] the scond one seems to be the best approach [01:12:32] next steps: solicit feedback from wg [01:12:39] Greg -- [01:14:27] greg --> really good, but discussion on the listwith question: how it will impact the restart associated? [01:14:34] Glenn Parsons joins the room [01:16:31] lou--> ERO could not be the best place to address intermediate hops. More discussions on the list. julien --> technically is interesting, but operational, do you have some use case? In field I doubt it will really make use of this extension [01:18:45] adrian --> 4420 included rro attributes tlv. My concern is how much data should you carry, maybe it doesn't scale well. Concerns about extending RRO. [01:21:00] lou -->we are moving beyond from what was the spirit of RRO and ERO. this use is for mid point sinalling. Mayb we are overloading ERO and RRO [01:22:21] dimitri --> the more information we put during the configuration the more will be the error rate. [01:23:30] we had already problems to extend a bit the ero with small infos like interfac, what will be the impact in putting those new infos? [01:25:25] attila summarizes --> all the concerns are dealing with the same point lou --> maybe it is not the right thing to do (putting in the ero infos different than the data path), together with this point, are those infos really necessary? [01:25:45] -------------------------------------------- pres 8 [01:25:53] Sadler [01:26:11] "MT > 1 support over boudled links" [01:26:28] motivation --> case where I have multi domain te link [01:29:45] Good Job... [01:33:26] method and example of encodings [01:37:37] summary and proposal --> looking for co-ahutors, wg draft [01:38:21] rajan --> scaling in the core network: is it used to scale the bw in the core ntw? [01:40:24] julien --> in the case of single rsvp sesion, which behavior in terms of recovery? recovery the all rsvp session of the all traffic? talking about link failure. answer --> extend the signalling to move in a new path. lou --> [01:40:39] julien --> it will be a big change [01:42:10] chenran joins the room [01:42:21] lou --> pretty much the same comment as julien. pretty radical change. Boundling up to now was for routing optimization, but lot of impact on signalling behavior. [01:43:48] lyndon --> there are no mechanism to do this kind of control [01:43:59] ------------------------------------------------ pres 9 [01:44:06] sadler [01:44:30] "Signaling for Inverse Multiplexing Schemes via GMPLS using RSVP-TE" [01:45:05] motivation and proposed extensions [01:45:51] test [01:48:47] next steps --> looking for co.authors, wg draft [01:50:12] question --> if you have N members, you need N+1 lsp? [01:51:59] sasha --> suggestion of having a minimum number that makes it worthwhile. [01:52:14] previous comment from Sasha Vainshtein [01:52:42] this deals with any inverse multiplexing, not just vcat [01:53:37] lou --> if you are going to propose any new functionality, the suggetion is to build on the existing toolkit. [01:53:47] ------------------------------------ pres 10 [01:53:52] L. Ong [01:54:13] "OSPFv2 Extensions for ASON Routing -- Experience & Additional functions" [01:54:36] testing experience on ason routing testing experience [01:55:12] CCAMP work on ASON is exp --> no standard codepoint [01:55:24] OIF experimented with similar extensions [01:56:15] hide.zebra leaves the room [01:56:51] OIF would like to see this on standard track [01:57:18] oif extension are offered for ccamp use [01:58:07] lou --> one of the biggest issue for the standard track was lack of implementation [01:58:32] lou --> the fastest way would be to implement it before [01:59:41] lou --> the codepoint assignement has being worked with OSPF and Ads [02:01:19] dimitri --> distinguish significant from insignificant differences [02:03:17] lou --> we're out of time, the best way is to take the experiment, run it. After that we can move very quickly. [02:03:45] sadlerjon joins the room [02:04:17] ------------------------------------------------- pres 11 [02:04:31] The draft referenced (draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf) was first submitted in June 2006. It was not available when the OIF did their work in 2003. [02:04:55] A. Liu [02:05:13] " RSVP-TE Graceful Restart under Fast Re-route conditions" [02:05:26] problem statement [02:07:43] satoru.matsushima leaves the room [02:08:07] no questions [02:08:16] ------------------------------------ pres 12 [02:08:26] T. Murai [02:08:42] "Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs " [02:09:03] just doing a summary becasue he already talked about the draft in the mpls wg [02:10:30] motivation, new object type and format [02:10:50] satoru.matsushima joins the room [02:12:30] -------------------------------------- pres 13 [02:12:50] X. Fu [02:12:52] "PCE Solution for multilayer lsp" [02:15:47] scenario, solutions and examples [02:17:53] next steps: more detalied solutions [02:18:04] no questions [02:18:17] --------------------------- charter update ---------------------------------- [02:22:51] eve --> maybe we should just use the word (...) for contol plane view of data plane technology [02:23:25] lou --> a mileston could be defined by multiple documents [02:23:56] debora --> look forward to discussion [02:25:06] malcom --> warning around path configuration. configuration of OAM for example [02:25:20] we should mention it explicitely [02:25:36] lou --> if you send suggestion is appreciated [02:25:45] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [02:25:49] elisa.bellagamba leaves the room [02:26:30] satoru.matsushima leaves the room [02:28:11] sadlerjon leaves the room [02:34:13] AdrianFarrel leaves the room [02:34:56] chenran leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [02:40:32] LouBerger leaves the room [02:41:56] weihongbo leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [02:57:11] Glenn Parsons leaves the room [03:04:48] chenran joins the room [03:04:53] chenran leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [04:11:34] LouBerger joins the room [04:36:30] Glenn Parsons joins the room [05:11:39] LouBerger leaves the room [05:57:01] weihongbo joins the room [05:57:33] weihongbo leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [06:22:47] Glenn Parsons leaves the room [06:23:05] LouBerger joins the room [06:23:49] LouBerger leaves the room [07:19:43] Glenn Parsons joins the room [10:36:08] Glenn Parsons leaves the room