A New IETF Work Area?A New IETF Work Area?

Fred BakerFred BakerIETF ChairIETF Chair

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

A long time comingA long time coming

Sorry for the last minute confusionSorry for the last minute confusion The IESG has been talking about this for a long timeThe IESG has been talking about this for a long time Its hard because changing the IETF structure is hardIts hard because changing the IETF structure is hard

• And should be hardAnd should be hard Not quite done yetNot quite done yet

• Waiting feedback from this weekWaiting feedback from this week

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

Above and belowAbove and below

Traditionally the IETF has been:Traditionally the IETF has been:• ““Above the wire and below the application”Above the wire and below the application”• Not defining user interfaces Not defining user interfaces • Not defining physical wire typesNot defining physical wire types

But doing “IP over foo”But doing “IP over foo”• ““Foo” has been network typesFoo” has been network types• Ethernet, Token Ring, ATM, Sonet/SDH, ...Ethernet, Token Ring, ATM, Sonet/SDH, ...• But foo is changingBut foo is changing

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

IP over “trails”, “circuits”, “paths”, ...IP over “trails”, “circuits”, “paths”, ...

What looks like wires to IP may not be physical What looks like wires to IP may not be physical wireswires• May instead be something where paths can be configuredMay instead be something where paths can be configured• Where a path looks like a wire to IPWhere a path looks like a wire to IP

– E.g. ATM VCsE.g. ATM VCs• Might also be routed datagrams another layer downMight also be routed datagrams another layer down

– E.g. Ipsec tunnelsE.g. Ipsec tunnels And then there is MPLSAnd then there is MPLS

• A progressively more important “foo”A progressively more important “foo”

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

Layer violationsLayer violations

Another complexity if the sub-IP technology is Another complexity if the sub-IP technology is configurableconfigurable• E.g. MPLS, ATM, Frame Relay, ...E.g. MPLS, ATM, Frame Relay, ...

Might want to have IP-level routing be able to know Might want to have IP-level routing be able to know about sub-IP pathsabout sub-IP paths• Question may be “could a new path exist with certain Question may be “could a new path exist with certain

characteristics”characteristics”• Not just “does a path exist”Not just “does a path exist”

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

Architectural IssuesArchitectural Issues

End to end?End to end?• Means host to hostMeans host to host• Internet layer is end to endInternet layer is end to end• Service provider network is edge to edgeService provider network is edge to edge

– Precludes application optimizationsPrecludes application optimizations Internet: heterogeneous network of networksInternet: heterogeneous network of networks

• Optimizations can preclude future developmentsOptimizations can preclude future developments• Optimizations might not work outOptimizations might not work out

U N I V E R S I T YU N I V E R S I T Y

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

Not limited to MPLSNot limited to MPLS

Other current and proposed IETF efforts deal with Other current and proposed IETF efforts deal with sub-IPsub-IP• Traffic Engineering, Traffic Engineering, • General Switch Management ProtocolGeneral Switch Management Protocol• IP over Optics IP over Optics • Provider Provisioned VPNs...Provider Provisioned VPNs...

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

A new area?A new area?

A systematic approach to sub-IP issues would be A systematic approach to sub-IP issues would be nicenice• But exact scope is not yet clearBut exact scope is not yet clear

IESG created a temporary pseudo-area for sub-IP IESG created a temporary pseudo-area for sub-IP • Temporarily, in General area, managed by IETF ChairTemporarily, in General area, managed by IETF Chair• IESG will evaluate effort before next IETF meetingIESG will evaluate effort before next IETF meeting

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

Options with respect to areaOptions with respect to area

New area not needed: distribute Working Groups to New area not needed: distribute Working Groups to other areasother areas

Only short term requirement: continue pseudo-areaOnly short term requirement: continue pseudo-area• Disband when doneDisband when done

Might ask current Area Directors to manage (like Might ask current Area Directors to manage (like with IPng)with IPng)

New IETF area needed: ask nomcom to search for New IETF area needed: ask nomcom to search for AD(s)AD(s)

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

Non-ObjectivesNon-Objectives

The IETF is not expanding into standards for physical The IETF is not expanding into standards for physical or virtual circuit technologiesor virtual circuit technologies• No new circuit switch architecture from IETFNo new circuit switch architecture from IETF• Leave them to others Leave them to others

But may form Working Groups to help advise other But may form Working Groups to help advise other standards organizations on how to make things IP-standards organizations on how to make things IP-friendly friendly • E.g. IpoptrE.g. Ipoptr• Need to communicate with other standards organizations on Need to communicate with other standards organizations on

what we are actually doingwhat we are actually doing

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

ObjectivesObjectives

Layer 2.5 protocols: Layer 2.5 protocols: • E.g. MPLSE.g. MPLS

Protocols that monitor, manage or effect logical circuit Protocols that monitor, manage or effect logical circuit technologytechnology• E.g. IP Over Optical, Traffic Engineering, Common Control and E.g. IP Over Optical, Traffic Engineering, Common Control and

Management ProtocolsManagement Protocols Protocols that create logical circuits over IP:Protocols that create logical circuits over IP:

• E.g. Provider Provisioned VPNsE.g. Provider Provisioned VPNs Protocols that interface to forwarding hardwareProtocols that interface to forwarding hardware

• General Switch Management ProtocolGeneral Switch Management Protocol

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

Area managementArea management

Housed in General area under IETF chairHoused in General area under IETF chair New area directorateNew area directorate

• Area Directors from O&M, RTG, INT & TSVArea Directors from O&M, RTG, INT & TSV• Working Group chairs for Working Groups in areaWorking Group chairs for Working Groups in area• People that the directorate thinks would be helpfulPeople that the directorate thinks would be helpful

Directorate to advise IETF chair about management Directorate to advise IETF chair about management of areaof area

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

Entities in new areaEntities in new area

Working Groups:Working Groups:• Internet Traffic Engineering (tewg)Internet Traffic Engineering (tewg)• Multiprotocol Label Swapping (mpls)Multiprotocol Label Swapping (mpls)• Generic Switch Management Protocol (gsmp)Generic Switch Management Protocol (gsmp)• Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (ppvpn)Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (ppvpn)

BOFs this weekBOFs this week• Common Control and Management Protocols (ccamp)Common Control and Management Protocols (ccamp)• IP over Optics (ipo)IP over Optics (ipo)• IP over Packet Transport Rings (ipoptr)IP over Packet Transport Rings (ipoptr)

49th IETF CCAMP BOF

StatusStatus

Working Group list not finalWorking Group list not final• Looking for adviceLooking for advice

Working Group charters (and re-charters) not finalWorking Group charters (and re-charters) not final• Looking for adviceLooking for advice

Working Group chairs not finalWorking Group chairs not final• Looking for adviceLooking for advice

Internet Draft partitioning not yet doneInternet Draft partitioning not yet done• Looking for adviceLooking for advice

– Where should IDs be considered (if at all) ?Where should IDs be considered (if at all) ?– Which IDs should be consolidated?Which IDs should be consolidated?– For this meeting IDs stay where they were For this meeting IDs stay where they were

A New IETF Work Area?A New IETF Work Area?

Discuss:Discuss: tv-area@ops.ietf.orgtv-area@ops.ietf.orgRequest:Request: tv-area-request@ops.ietf.orgtv-area-request@ops.ietf.org

Discussion...Discussion...