8
L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA

L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

L2VPN WG Meeting

IETF 65

Dallas, TX, USA

Page 2: L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

WG Document Status (1/4)I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security

Area review: • Cleared DISCUSS:

– draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-08– draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2vpn-07

• draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-06– Needs paragraph included from RFC4364, §13.1, to clear

DISCUSS.– Paragraph unifies security between L3VPN & L2VPN.

• draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-07– Needs a paragraph to say that for manually instantiated tunnels

refer to RFC4023; for auto-discovered tunnels over IP, it is desirable to have a more automated method to secure the traffic – however, that is out-of-scope for this document and will be looked at in the future.

Page 3: L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

WG Document Status (2/4)

• draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-06– Does not adequately address §4.5.1, User Data

Security, of RFC 3809.• l2vpn-reqmt’s should address this in the same manner as

§6.9.1 (Support for Securing Customer Flows [over the Internet]) of RFC 4031 to make L3VPN & L2VPN consistent.

– Need to reconcile §6.10.4, Security Considerations for Multi-Provider L2VPN’s, from RFC4031 with l2vpn-reqmt’s.

• l2vpn-reqmt’s has multi-provider requirements, but less specific security language than RFC4031.

Page 4: L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

WG Document Status (3/4)

• In RFC-Editor Queue: – draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-05

• Passed WG LC, waiting for ARP-MED:– draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-05

• Need to issue WG LC, (after IETF 65):– draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-00

• Need to make WG doc, (after IETF 65):– draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02

• Needs some more (minor) work, before WG LC:– draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-04

Page 5: L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

WG Document Status (4/4)

• In Progress:– draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-04– draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-00– draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-00– draft-qiu-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-ldp-00– draft-praba-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-emul-01– draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00– draft-weillian-l2vpn-mib-00.txt

• Unknown or New I-D's:– draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-01, (well, not so new …)– draft-ietf-l2vpn-radius-pe-discovery-02– draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-multicast-congruency-00

Page 6: L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

VPLS + VPWS MIB Work

• Asked Tom Nadeau to be lead-editor

• Tom is editing a document with ZTE + Cisco + Alcatel MIB contributions

• Publish first revision to list in May timeframe for WG review

• Wrap up MIB work by December

Page 7: L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

Multicast State Distribution between VPLS PE routers Using LDP

draft-qiu-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-ldp- 01.txt

Changes made in 01:

• LDP Multicast Capability TLV– Now have bits for PIM-SM, PIM-DM, and IGMP/MLD

• Removed MAC address field from Hello Sub TLV

• Wording changes

Page 8: L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS:

PIM Snooping over VPLS

draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt

Next Steps:

• Add the PIM proxy approach to the next revision of the draft after this IETF meeting

• Ask for WG call to move it forward to support the LDP multicast state distribution draft