Hmm... well that was pretty stupid of me. That I can fix... any others???
Karen
On 9/1/10 4:22 PM, Danny Mayer wrote:
Well the first errors are that the NTP RFC numbers are wrong! They
should be 5905 (NTP v4), 5906 (Autokey), 5907 (MIB), and 5908 (DHCP
Options).
Danny
On 9/1/2010 12:22 PM, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
Folks,
Below are the minutes for our July meeting. My apologies for the delay
in getting them out. If you have any comments, we have until 15 Sept to
submit changes.
Thanks,
Karen
####################
Joint NTP/TICTOC Working Group Meeting
Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1520 – 1700
The jabber log can be found at:
http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/tictoc/2010-07-27.txt
The meeting was called to order by co-chairs Yaakov Stein and
Karen O'Donoghue. Sterling Knickerbocker took the minutes, and
Brian Haberman acted as jabber scribe. Blue sheets were
distributed, and the note well warning presented.
The proposed agenda was:
1. NTP issues
- Karen
2. 1588 over MPLS
- Yaakov
- Shahram
- Ron Cohen
- Lizhong Jin (P2MP LSP with co-routed reverse path)
3. Timing Security
- Stefano
- Rock
4. Timing Management
- Tim Frost
5. Other
- Stefano (ITU SG15 Q13 status update)
NTP issues
==========
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-10/tictoc-10.htm
Karen O'Donoghue reviewed recent accomplishments in the NTP WG.
The four primary documents have been published as RFCs (RFC3505,
RFC3506, RFC3507, RFC3508). There is a new draft under
discussion on list (draft-chen-ntps-ra-opt-00.txt). There is
some concern about whether this option should be supported at
all. Further discussion is requested on the mailing list, and
guidance has been solicited from the 6man working group chairs.
There has been some discussion regarding moving the core NTP RFC
further along the IETF standards track because of its level of
maturity. Further discussion will be held off until after the
Administrative Plenary due to the possible changes to that
process. Yaakov commented that discussions have taken place
about making exceptions for standards track documents and the
multiple implementation requirement.
ITU SG15 Q13 status update
==========================
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-4/tictoc-4.htm
Stefano Ruffini presented an update on the activities of ITU-T
SG15 Q13 which has been in operation since 2004. Several
recommendations have been completed including G.8261, G.8262,
and G.8264. An IEEE 1588 Frequency profile is under development
and will be followed by a Time of Day profile. Additional
details are available in the slides.
Danny Mayer asked why there were no IPv6 based profiles under
development in the ITU-T. Stefano indicated that it could be
could be a future work item. Peter Lothberg asked which version
of UTC is being specified. Stefano responded that it is the most
local UTC, and Peter commented that several companies may have
several UTC sources that may not match within the desired
performance window.
1588 over MPLS
==============
There were four presentations related to IEEE 1588 over MPLS.
1588 MPLS encapsulation
-----------------------
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-0/tictoc-0.htm
Yaakov Stein presented a summary of the 1588 MPLS encapsulations
options discussed at IETF77 and discussed what would need to be
done next. There was a fair amount of discussion related to the
basic requirements associated with this effort. One question
asked was why do you need special treatment for timing packets.
We need to more clearly articulate the requirements and see if
there are already tools in MPLS to address them. Putting
timestamps as close to the hardware as possible has already been
solved. If a Boundary Clock (BC) or Transparent Clock (TC) is
used, work will be required to handle the signaling. How is
packet routing/rerouting handled? Luca Martini commented that we
need to define the service of the network. A transparent clock
will only work on a known network. Define an MPLS label so the
network knows it is a timing packet and what to do with it. The
requirement for pursuing a special encapsulation is not clear,
and the specifications required for the encapsulation are not
developed.
1588 over MPLS
--------------
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-5/tictoc-5.htm
Yaakov Stein presented a set of slides for Shahram Davari who
was unable to attend. These slides propose an approach to IEEE
1588 encapsulation. Luca Martini commented that this is fine
with respect to encapsulation but still needs some signaling
work. Something needs to be updated so the router can recognize
this as a timing packet. Another question was does the router
need to recognize it as a timing packet? Does 1588 support P2MP
LSPs? It appears the answer is yes for both Ethernet and IP.
Peter commented that you need to make sure you do not hard code
the solution. There was a comment that TCs are not needed;
however, Steffano commented that TCs are needed for very
accurate time sync. Mark Glasser commented that we should
reorder the options because some are harder/more work. This
appears to be an easier solution.
(Direct) PTP over MPLS
----------------------
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-8/tictoc-8.htm
Draft:
draft-ronc-ptp-mps-00.txt (expired)
Ron Cohen provided an overview of his expired draft on PTP over
MPLS providing a justification for PTP directly over MPLS. Peter
Lothberg asked how big is the MPLS cloud in km or miles? If you
make it large, say 500km of fiber, the delay variation will be
on the order of 200ns. Craig commented that it is assumed that
you can synchronize the boundaries of the MPLS cloud, but that
is the basis of the problem – how do we sync the clocks on the
edge of the cloud? Craig asked if we have looked at the effects
on time sync if the service being provided may not have the same
time reference in the LSR when supporting multiple clocks.
Further discussion was moved to the mailing list.
P2MP LSP with co-routed reverse path
------------------------------------
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-1/tictoc-1.htm
Lizhong Jin presented a set of slides on P2MP LSP with co-routed
reverse path. Yaakov commented that trying to force two slaves
to send their delay_req at different times to avoid congestion
at the Grandmaster sounds complicated. Further discussion was
moved to the mailing list.
Timing Security
===============
There were two presentations on timing security.
Stefano Ruffini: Packet Timing Security Aspects.
------------------------------------------------
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-2/tictoc-2.htm
Stefano provided a discussion on some thoughts on basic
architecture and requirements with respect to timing and
security and possible ITU-T efforts. This is one area where the
ITU-T would like to be able to leverage work done in the IETF.
Security Requirement for 1588v2 over IPSec
------------------------------------------
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-3/tictoc-3.htm
Rock presented two proposed approaches in 3GPP and ITU for IEEE
1588v2 protection using IPsec, entire protection and partial
protection. In the entire protection approach, all of the 1588v2
packets are protected with IPsec. For partial protections, the
general messages are protected while the event messages are not.
There was concern expressed that encryption of timing packets
would impact the synchronization accuracy. Further discussion
has highlighted the difference between encrypting timing packets
to secure them versus having to compensate for transmission of
timing packets over a link that is encrypted. Further discussion
on the topic is required. It was also unclear whether this work
should be pursued in the TICTOC or IPSecME working groups.
Timing Management
=================
Drafts:
draft-frost-tictoc-management-00.txt
draft-frost-tictoc-ptp-slave-mib-00.txt
Slides:
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-6/tictoc-6.htm
www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/tictoc-7/tictoc-7.htm
Tim Frost presented two drafts on network management. Due to
time constraints, discussion was moved to the mailing list. The
chairs thanked Tim for the submission of drafts to initiate the
conversation.
Karen wrapped up meeting with a reminder to attendees to ask
your questions on the mailing list as some may have been missed
during the meeting. The chairs also indicated that they plan to
hold a series of conference calls to progress to work before the
next meeting. The chairs thanked everyone for the contributions
and discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 17:05 pm.
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
