Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) IETF 66, Montreal Wojciech Dec Matthew Bocci

Administrivia Blue Sheets Note takers + Jabber Scribe Mailing List: General Discussion: To Subscribe: In Body: subscribe your_ _address Archive:

Agenda Introduction/agenda tweaking (Chairs) Working Group Charter (Chairs - 10 mins) ANCP Requirements (Stefaan de Cnodder - 15mins) GSMP extensions for layer2 control (L2C) Topology Discovery and Line Configuration (Sanjay Wadhwa - 15 mins) ANCP Graceful Restart Mechanism (Sanjay Wadhwa - 10 mins) ANCP MIBs (Stefaan de Cnodder - 10 mins) Outstanding Work Items (Chairs - 30mins)

Charter Changes since the BoF Clarified terminology and WG name Clarified non-goals –Set-up of VCs or generic Access Node Management. Firmed up security objectives Reliability & Scalability –Graceful restart –Distribution of functionality

Revised Milestones May 2006 ANCP MIB Last Call Nov 2006 Accept WG I-D for ANCP Framework and Requirements Jan 2007 Accept WG I-D for Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) Jan 2007 Framework and Requirements last call Mar 2007 Accept WG I-D for ANCP MIB Apr 2007 Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) Last Call Jul 2007 Re-charter or conclude Working Group

Mailing list changes All subscribers to L2CP mailing list should have been moved to has been Please use for discussion relevant to the To subscribe: –Send mail with subject “subscribe” to ancp-

ANCP Requirements / Framework Stefaan

GSMP Extensions Sanjay

ANCP Graceful Restart Sanjay

ANCP MIBs Stefaan

Outstanding Work Items Functional Partitioning and multiple controllers Light-weight transport protocol ANCP Protocol Security Multicast control

Functional Partitioning and multiple controllers What are the partitioning capabilities required? –Q1: Controller redundancy? How many redundant controllers? –Q2: Controller functional split? –Q3: Do we envisage both to be required? Eg Redundant controller for QoS and single controller for OAM –Q4: Is it envisaged that multiple controllers, possibly managed by different operators, would be controlling the same function? –Q5: How is the “ownership” of a controlled port to be negotiated? –Q6: What are the security implications of functional partitioning across organisations?

Light-weight transport protocol High level goal is to scale the number of ANCP controlled nodes without compromising the transactional capabilities –Q1: What are the real transport requirements? Do all ANCP messages and interactions require the same mode of transport and message delivery, eg unicast reliable message delivery? –Q2: Does the light weight protocol become the long term goal over TCP? –Q3:Do we look for an existing light-weight transport IETF protocol? –Q4: Can SCTP be a valid alternative?

ANCP Protocol Security Minimally addressed in the current draft via pre-configured peer IP address based security at the moment. Transport protocol security is an option, but this might not be applicable for when an alternative transport is defined or might not cover ANCP risks : –ANCP Protocol security appears to require WG work Security requires from a threat model of ANCP and ANCP transport to drive the security requirements. Operational considerations also drive some security requirements: ANCP aims to simply operations across organisational boundaries. Use of pre-shared keys could impact such simplification.

Multicast control Multicast control appears to encompass two main functions: –Controlling directly the per port multicast group replication or multicast data plane filtering on an AN –Reporting to the NAS per port membership and stats Use-cases remain to be firmed up Need to clarify relationship with exiting multicast techniques and protocols Input from multicast WGs would be beneficial –No intention to reinvent the wheel.