Iptel working group IETF 49. Agenda Agenda Bashing [Rosenberg] 5 mins Working Group Update [Rosenberg] 5 mins Service Codes [Peterson] 15 mins TRIP MIB.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Karlston D'Emanuele Distance Vector Routing Protocols Notes courtesy of Mr. Joe Cordina Password Removed
Advertisements

SIP and Instant Messaging. SIP Summit SIP and Instant Messaging What Does Presence Have to Do With SIP? How to Deliver.
Iptel IETF 51. Agenda Bashing Agenda Bashing5m CPL and TRIP Status5m Charter Review10m TRIP for GW10m.
Iptel Working Group IETF 52. Agenda Agenda Bash [Rosenberg] 2m CPL/TRIP Updates [Rosenberg] 5m TRIP MIB [Walker] 10m Gateway Registration Scenarios: Internet2.
Fall VoN 2000 SIP Servers SIP Servers: A Buyers Guide Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
Insert Tradeshow or Event Name -- Date Insert Presentation Title Realities of Multi-Domain Gateway Network Management Jonathan Rosenberg.
Draft-ietf-dhc-stateless-dhcpv6- renumbering-01 Tim Chown dhc WG, IETF 60, San Diego, August 2, 2004.
1 Interdomain Routing Protocols. 2 Autonomous Systems An autonomous system (AS) is a region of the Internet that is administered by a single entity and.
Chapter 4: Network Layer 4. 1 Introduction 4.2 Virtual circuit and datagram networks 4.3 What’s inside a router 4.4 IP: Internet Protocol –Datagram format.
DIME WG IETF 78 Agenda and WG Status Tuesday, July 27, 2010 Jabber room: Audio:
14 – Inter/Intra-AS Routing
Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes) 62 nd IETF Meeting Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Detecting Network Attachment IETF61 Chairs: Pekka Nikander, Greg Daley.
TRILL over IP draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-01.txt IETF 91, Honolulu Margaret Wasserman Donald Eastlake, Dacheng Zhang.
I-4 routing scalability Taekyoung Kwon Some slides are from Geoff Huston, Michalis Faloutsos, Paul Barford, Jim Kurose, Paul Francis, and Jennifer Rexford.
Module 9: Designing Network Access Protection. Scenarios for Implementing NAP Verifying the health of: Roaming laptops Desktop computers Visiting laptops.
DIME WG IETF 79 DIME WG Status & Other Stuff Thursday, November 11, 2010 Jouni Korhonen, Lionel Morand.
Border Gateway Protocol
July 2011IETF TRILL WG1 TRILL Working Group TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links Mailing list: Tools site:
EAI WG meeting IETF-65, March 20, Agenda 17:40 Welcome, blue sheet, scribe, agenda bashing 17:50 Review of WG charter (approved) 17:55 Problem/framing:
11 December, th IETF, AAA WG1 AAA Proxies draft-ietf-aaa-proxies-01.txt David Mitton.
Dime WG Status Update IETF#80, 1-April Agenda overview Agenda bashing WG status update Active drafts Recently expired IESG processing Current milestones.
1 IETF 78: NETEXT Working Group IPSec/IKEv2 Access Link Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 IPSec/IKEv2-based Access Link Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 Sri Gundavelli.
November 2010IETF TRILL WG1 TRILL Working Group TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links Mailing list: Tools site:
Network Layer4-1 Intra-AS Routing r Also known as Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) r Most common Intra-AS routing protocols: m RIP: Routing Information.
Lecture 17 November 8Intra-domain routing November 13Internet routing 1 November 15Internet routing 2 November 20End-to-end protocols 1 November 22End-to-end.
Multiple Interfaces (MIF) WG IETF 79, Beijing, China Margaret Wasserman Hui Deng
1 NetLMM Vidya Narayanan Jonne Soininen
IPv6 Working Group IETF58 Minneapolis November 2003 Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman Chairs.
NEMO Re-chartering IETF 67 – November 9, 2006 T.J. Kniveton.
IETF-90 (Toronto) DHC WG Meeting Wednesday, July 23, GMT IETF-90 DHC WG1 Last Updated: 07/21/ :10 EDT.
Page 1 IETF Speermint Working Group Speermint Requirements/Guidelines for SIP session peering draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-02 IETF 69 - Monday July.
Web Authorization Protocol (oauth) IETF 90, Toronto Chairs: Hannes Tschofenig, Derek Atkins Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty Mailing List:
1 ForCES Applicability Statement Alan Crouch Mark Handley Hormuzd Khosravi 65 th IETF Meeting, Dallas.
Moving towards an IRS WG Charter Ross Callon IETF 85, Atlanta.
SIP wg: New Drafts Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
RObust Header Compression WG (ROHC) 66 th IETF Montreal, Canada, July 11, 2006 Meeting Chair: Carsten Bormann WG Chair: Lars-Erik Jonsson.
Signaling Transport WG (sigtran) Wednesday, March 29, :30 AM =================================== CHAIR: Lyndon Ong -- Intro and agenda bashing.
NSIS WG Meeting IETF 66 Montreal John Loughney (chair)
Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) IETF 76, Hiroshima Wojciech Dec Matthew Bocci
HTTPbis BOF IETF 69, Chicago BOF Chairs: Mark Nottingham Alexey Melnikov Mailing List: Jabber:
March 20th, 2001 SIP WG meeting 50th IETF SIP WG meeting Overlap signalling handling
Autoconf WG 66 th IETF, Montreal. Agenda and Status (1/2) Agenda Bashing min WG & Doc Status
Profiling Use of PKI in IPsec (pki4ipsec) Date: Monday, Mar 7, 2005 at Location: Rochester room Chairs: Paul Knight Gregory Lebovitz Mail list:
Page 1 IETF DRINKS Working Group Data Model and Protocol Requirements for DRINKS IETF 72 - Thursday July Tom Creighton -
WREC Working Group IETF 49, San Diego Co-Chairs: Mark Nottingham Ian Cooper WREC Working Group.
SIPPING Working Group IETF 67 Mary Barnes Gonzalo Camarillo.
Web Authorization Protocol WG Hannes Tschofenig, Derek Atkins.
SIP wg Items Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft Caller Preferences: Changes Discussion of Redirects –Previous draft only proxy –Nothing different for redirect.
28 October 2016 Webex IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE e
Jonathan Rosenberg Volker Hilt Daryl Malas
Kumiko Ono End-to-middle Security in SIP draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-04 draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-03 Kumiko Ono.
BGP (cont) 1. BGP Peering 2. BGP Attributes
L1VPN Working Group Scope
Agenda and Status SIP Working Group
IETF57 Vienna July 2003 Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman Chairs
CAPWAP Working Group IETF 66 Montreal
IP Telephony (iptel) IETF 56
Jonathan Rosenberg Bell Laboratories 8/24/98
Additional TRILL Work/Documents
Realities of Multi-Domain Gateway Network Management
Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access - PANA -
Debashish Purkayastha, Dirk Trossen, Akbar Rahman
AP Functional Needs of CAPWAP
Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access - PANA -
Path Computation Element WG Status
An MPLS-Based Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining
Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF)
Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF)
Presentation transcript:

Iptel working group IETF 49

Agenda Agenda Bashing [Rosenberg] 5 mins Working Group Update [Rosenberg] 5 mins Service Codes [Peterson] 15 mins TRIP MIB [Walker] 15 mins Intra-Domain Architecture [Rosenberg] 15 mins CPL Authorization [Kuthan] 15 mins Working Group future directions [Rosenberg] 30 mins

WG Update CPL Specification –Draft –03 IESG last call made Nov 17 –Under AD review now –Interop testing done at last bakeoff! CPLs created by Indigo tool sent and processed by dynamicsoft interpreter TRIP Specification –WG last call issued on Draft –04 on Nov 29 –Authentication stuff removed, since HBH using IPSec seems to work fine for us for now

Intra-Domain Architecture Main Observation: –Routes amongst proxies within a domain dependent on policy –Underlying layer 3 network already provides connectivity! –Proxies within a domain thus only exist as policy units –Shortest path is not the objective

Example Network NY POP CA POP Customer Facing Proxies POLICY: to NY to CA Each backs up The other

How to achieve policy? Gateways propagate routes with specific weights –Very difficult to manage Preferred approach –Gateways simply push their routes up to load balancing proxies –Load balancing proxies select gateway based on locally programmed algorithms –Push aggregate POP reachability up towards customer access point –Customer access proxies decide when to use which POP, maybe per customer

Architectural Model Groups of proxies within a domain look like their own mini- domain Makes sense to use TRIP for intra-mini- domains What needs to change? –Additional params and attributes –Gateway capacity, codecs, local preferences, etc.

Open Issue Is “last hop” from gateway to proxies that front it a push or pull protocol? Push –Faster –Better for policy –Security model makes more sense –Ideal for point to point case Pull –Good for large fan outs –Allows gateways to be used by any type of client INV ?

WG Future Current chartered items are complete We need to shut down or re-charter What might we work on? –TRIP MIB (needed for draft) –Intra-domain architectures and protocols –Gateway registration –Service routing –CPL-NG –CPL MIB