Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)

Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) IETF 68, Prague Wojciech Dec (wdec@cisco.com) Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel.co.uk)

Agenda • Administrivia, WG Status and WG Docs Update (Chairs – 5 mins) • ANCP Requirements / Framework (Stefaan de Cnodder - 10 mins) • ANCP Multicast Discussion (Chairs – 15 mins) • ANCP Access Node MIBs (Stefaan de Cnodder - 15mins) • ANCP Security Threats and Requirements (Hassnaa Moustafa - 15 mins) • ANCP Protocol Draft (Derek Harkness - 15 mins) • Protocol Draft: Versioning and TLV numbering (Chairs – 10 min)

Administrivia • Blue Sheets • Note takers + Jabber Scribe • Mailing List: General Discussion: ancp@ietf.org To Subscribe: ancp-request@ietf.org In Body: subscribe your_email_address Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/index.html

Milestones • Done Accept WG I-D for ANCP Framework and Requirements • Done Accept WG ID for Security Threats analysis • Done Accept WG I-D for Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) • Mar 2007 Framework and Requirements last call • Mar 2007 Accept WG I-D for ANCP MIB • June 2007 Security Threats Analysis last call • August 2007 Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) Last Call • August 2007 ANCP MIB Last Call • Nov 2007 Re-charter or conclude Working Group

Charter Items /Working Group Document Status • Framework and Requirements • Accepted as WG I-D • Multicast discussion ongoing… • Topology Discovery… • Need definition of requirements for Light-weight transport protocol. What scalability issue are we trying to address?

ANCP Requirements / Framework • Stefaan (stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be) • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ancp-framework-01.txt

Multicast Discussion • Mailing list discussion. • Broad sweep through the proposals: • Provisioned ACL for IGMP messages. Question as to whether this is a relatively static or dynamic ACL and as to its relationship with a PPP profile • Conditional authorization • Generation of accounting stop/start based on mcast replication • Replication stop • Replication start • CAC • Reporting (state, time, volume) • Not to preclude IGMP snooping

Multicast Discussion • Discussion largely focused on mechanisms and what’s & if’s • Everyone seems happy with applying ACLs via ANCP. ACL Acts on IGMP signalling received on the access-line. Need both an ACL provisioning mechanism and dynamic ACL change method. ACLs should allow an association to a port or user. • Provisioning capability is also tied to the other functionality that may need to be provisioned… • Replication control – done on demand; • Transactional: can be done via ANCP start/stop command set, • ACL modification: Changing the IGMP ACL (might not work in some scenarios). The ACL could also be a data plane ACL… • Two types of replication authorization: pre-authorized or on-demand. CAC is a form on on-demand authorization. • Reporting function; can be useful for operations/troubleshooting and accounting. Discussion on whether this is useful. • Delay/performance concerns… etc

What is our Multicast Control requirement? • From current draft: • “The Access Node Control Mechanism could be used to exchange the necessary information between the Access Node and the NAS so as to allow the Access Node to perform multicast replication in line with the Subscriber's policy and configuration, and also allow the NAS to follow each Subscriber's multicast group membership.” • Do we want to be able to use ANCP to provide equivalent functionality for multicast, whether the replication occurs on the NAS or the Access Node?

ANCP MIBs • Stefaan (stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be) • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decnodder-ancp-mib-an-01.txt

ANCP Security Threats and Requirements • Hassnaa (hassnaa.moustafa@orange-ftgroup.com) • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moustafa-ancp-security-threats-00.txt

ANCP Protocol Draft • Derek (dharkness@juniper.net) • http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-00.txt

ANCP Versioning • ANCP Versioning strategy: “Version or sub-version change are to be done primarily to address substantial protocol changes that will render previous versions incompatible” • Things that do not qualify for a new version: i) a new revision of the protocol draft spec ii) a conflicting TLV or sub-TLVs iii) incompatibilities arising from implementations of pre-RFC drafts. iv) new negotiable protocol capabilities (eg Bulk message capability) • Comments?

TLVs and Sub-TLVs • TLV and sub-TLV conflicts have appeared. Approach is to depreciate use of such conflicting items. • PORT-UP TLV Type 0x02 (Access-Loop-Remote-Id). Should have a new TLV # • PORT-UP TLV 0x04 (DSL Line attributes) sub-TLV 0x90 (Access Loop Encapsulation) . Should have a new sub-TLV # • Comments?

Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)