From nobody Wed Dec 13 10:28:24 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052D6128BBB; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:28:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bTos40kkIuph; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x241.google.com (mail-ot0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABC2D128CF0; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x241.google.com with SMTP id v21so2782721oth.6; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:28:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V0P8bQ5WjlFKq22SfkAH5yNC6yEfHw1X8LgprwMsZ2g=; b=hrvq7nJNe9visoVaPeHDv+2SNlyqb6+O2xkmsV7MIuDm1XlAGibQu8nNWTzllCY6sY pTM28F0mlbhR8xmR+icnHjhEBlgRpVSNd0QPo82rMzQB8ESKMZM9z0wVG+PhTA0yVU+A nTWWc1Cx75S4xPwOgwj9pcszvJsKh8WsfKBk45JqBQ8/SXB9LDsXjFg81sTlxXxPqEYH 9l+nxBq3QqlWxGPwYsrYfkJBonudNWJl1SgpzzJA4RQtOCWx900w3bbVu384HnsQjRXv 0K+zAF+xviCZT3wjOhVbVcyjDnBXdGCCHd+UCr7PCbXZw/0KF1wuYjOSgScHYH2spuuJ sKFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V0P8bQ5WjlFKq22SfkAH5yNC6yEfHw1X8LgprwMsZ2g=; b=F1Ae+letdSGlC3r6FlcfZbkI5HXZZdkE7KBB2kNXpWVqdLTVnstCewQZvl0/qSoBBV PmrJlMne5D6n1HLK1ZcID8Kfq+xR2AKeE5o1wKDNk6vEDZt5NIZ/HvP+sU2YsdL0reag NrF2dAVjpa0OQVGM2tlePIHuPO+XWg4Rk3ggJrwZzVOHgwp49Snz8GGdYvV+KPh1BDER G8ODjtGi8K5YNT9pnGoOiwgp3YXP6jt+2MZcluzryaJMjpvVlkJGWty5epuEwkZD53hN q3iMALVrGGLLpdbDK0A0ELJrqMvUyrGIPgUM92yZV8ElOCTgDtXRAtYLCDnW1WhmC5yq Mvdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJAM0iAVMwILtMPD1Jm5vmcUPp4ZiR3TtF1hdcMukQ4L4bI2Hxr wmQ50GJni7vE8T7xdtX199z/LpEg8o6L6sKkLYo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovGHVdc8/6X0fnI74c1ciMkVTyqpvdNSvxZ6MR1Txum7yQsf8uW+TaYbExwJwcD3G+hHbpJSWI7VqbrnhuCi4M= X-Received: by 10.157.56.200 with SMTP id k8mr2572828ote.3.1513189693841; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:28:13 -0500 From: Alvaro Retana X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:28:13 -0500 Message-ID: To: dcrouting@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org Cc: roll@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c01f182de59c05603cee49" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dcrouting] dcrouting BOF in Singapore (Mailing LIsts) X-BeenThere: dcrouting@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Routing in the Data Center: discussions about problems, requirements and potential solutions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 18:28:22 -0000 --001a11c01f182de59c05603cee49 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Adding routing-discussion, other IGP-focused WGs and rtg-dir, please feel free to forward.] Hi! As we move these efforts forward, we have now created two new mailing lists= : Routing In Fat Trees (rift): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/admin/rift Link State Vector Routing (lsvr): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/admin/lsvr If you are interested in either effort (or both!), please subscribe!! The next step is to discuss and agree on a suitable charter for each of the proposed WGs =E2=80=94 I have asked the proponents to start a discussion on= the respective lists in the next few days. The goal is to take the Charters to the IESG and have them approved significantly in advance of IETF 101. As a reminder, the focus of these efforts (resulting from the dcrouting BOF) is on new solutions: ones that require a standalone effort (WG) =E2=80= =93 It is not expected that work/discussions on related incremental enhancements in an existing WG be delayed or deferred. Thanks! Alvaro. On November 23, 2017 at 4:17:26 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: Hi! Thank you to everyone who participated in last week=E2=80=99s BOF!! After comparing notes with the BOF Chairs and my co-ADs, we believe there is good interest to start working on proposed charters for both RIFT and BGP-LS SPF. I will be working with the proponents on that in the next few weeks =E2=80=94 the current plan is for me to be the Responsible AD for bot= h of these efforts. Please stay tuned to this mailing list for further announcements on mailing lists and other details as we iron them out. Thanks!! Alvaro. --001a11c01f182de59c05603cee49 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[Adding routing-discussion, other IGP-focused WGs and rtg-dir, please feel free to forward.]


Hi!

As we move these efforts forward, we have now created two new mailing lists:

Routing In Fat Trees (rift):=C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/mailman/admin/rift=C2=A0
Link State Vector Routing (lsvr):=C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/mailman/admin/lsvr=C2=A0

If you are interested in either effort (or both!), please subscribe!!

The next step is to discuss and agree on a suitable charter for each of the proposed WGs =E2=80=94 I have asked the proponents to start a discussion on the respective lists in the next few days.=C2=A0 The goal is to take the Charters to the IESG and have them approved significantly in advance of IETF 101.

As a reminder, the focus of these efforts (resulting from the dcrouting BOF) is on new solutions: ones that require a standalone effort (WG) =E2=80=93 It is not expected that work/discussions on related incremental enhancements in an existing WG be delayed or deferred.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


On November 23, 2017 at 4:17:26 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wrote:

Hi!

Thank you to everyone who participated in last week=E2=80=99s BOF!!

After comparing notes with the BOF Chairs and my co-ADs, we believe there is good interest to start working on proposed charters for both RIFT and BGP-LS SPF.=C2=A0 I will be working with the proponents on that in the next few weeks =E2=80=94 the current plan is for me to be the Responsible AD for both of these efforts.

Please stay tuned to this mailing list for further announcements on mailing lists and other details as we iron them out.

Thanks!!

Alvaro.
--001a11c01f182de59c05603cee49-- From nobody Wed Dec 13 10:38:27 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301B212714F; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:38:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.738 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BRSrEqhut57o; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot0-x242.google.com (mail-ot0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B283124D6C; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot0-x242.google.com with SMTP id j2so2784287ota.13; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:38:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h4/MaJNvomeevDTG3p2QGnvNfz5lYyi8YqsJZXJN6fg=; b=kmJNkvfqMG7zHI5j8Dy7ulTiLzIxxmOiOQ2UMhuqiiIo3VvZJWsHPa/+FsOC07OQpl +SvRRMbFFH1mr5TxBSoL0Xx/7SA4wmDEBVib4xa6CiswMEQDIw0HGUpO/gbOJQ5Nf+m2 z1zzUM5fTh5dxgmXa3ZAt57dVw5N+Bg8fcXdLjarSuV0Dy/iSq50tWLHhDs1KEzym1RI qh3o6G9/8+7ZBsssG1XoLcE6TQFUfxB5MemwOEvLuPkN1NEzADUX7nzPF5QCaOhUo7ot qN0HmLRk1KrQGew9VRj54k8yD+EhPSKifSsTg+fJjvKGaLhGj/Aq2ynDTJR77Sic3rPX 2RCw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=h4/MaJNvomeevDTG3p2QGnvNfz5lYyi8YqsJZXJN6fg=; b=KFRtxM977g4zWdFxPNHs8ZmOH0GwNWJCGaRfLWi4XhwoalOGuNDF0QOxY7rgblOPHX Nodftw5aFWj0T9JJZyKlmkgkY6KRqDnTzelNdaaOW976HQrt9NDE4IusqGArU4Hm6+QO WBOVC1qvaYoLqfQj8wc3s6AdPce+XenlcmHdbaF7q2ltu1NeauUXMQn+8s6p5MK5ZTzH mq2M4z1RVi2xcUa5QcXFjuFY8nco6C2ODTPMWtLKMqxgc/H0piE+G44jCVym97h2tBZW pu81R3hrQ9KRMXAE6FF/tpyQPnk0rs5seg6HSTi873z827Gcuo491kmYL+AG/cKQI7Ci 2/Iw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKZ6D7X9RkC5LPYDMVhTb/h3UEhys+Wao+hMAHkmTuhfz5Al2wg 0t1TZ4nH0EwWQAT/U3GR1mamrl29Ko/Fhd3B0AM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotpLlXPuBOGfX0NjCGgKZu8AlVokF1wzRavzTLXSYY6z+rI3XPTt2/6xhTMUQumWUO9ujKSoDeh/EfqRSj31M8= X-Received: by 10.157.56.200 with SMTP id k8mr2593526ote.3.1513190284506; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:38:04 -0500 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:38:04 -0500 Message-ID: To: dcrouting@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org Cc: babel@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c01f1862b98605603d1194" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dcrouting] dcrouting BOF in Singapore (Mailing LIsts) X-BeenThere: dcrouting@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Routing in the Data Center: discussions about problems, requirements and potential solutions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 18:38:07 -0000 --001a11c01f1862b98605603d1194 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sorry, here are the right links: rift: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift lsvr: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr Thanks to the eager people already subscribing for pointing this out! Alvaro. On December 13, 2017 at 10:28:13 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: Routing In Fat Trees (rift): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/admin/rift Link State Vector Routing (lsvr): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/admin/lsvr --001a11c01f1862b98605603d1194 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
Sorry, here are the right links:

lsvr:=C2=A0<= a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr">https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/lsvr=C2=A0

Thanks to the eager people already subscribing for pointing this= out!=C2=A0
<= br>
Alvaro.

On December 13, 2017 at 10:28:13 AM, Alvar= o Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com<= /a>) wrote:

Link State Vector Routing (lsvr):=C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/mailman/a= dmin/lsvr=C2=A0

--001a11c01f1862b98605603d1194-- From nobody Fri Dec 22 00:27:22 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE7D127275 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:27:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.231 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2NX-TbyieOiw for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849B6126B72 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:27:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D0C6773CFDF0E for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:27:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:27:14 +0000 Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.57]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 16:27:07 +0800 From: Xuxiaohu To: "dcrouting@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: A comment on draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-spf Thread-Index: AdN6/qalrWTMjyrZR1yUr/rOo79Zxw== Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:27:06 +0000 Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE304A7141@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.184.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: [Dcrouting] A comment on draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-spf X-BeenThere: dcrouting@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Routing in the Data Center: discussions about problems, requirements and potential solutions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:27:21 -0000 Hi co-authors of the BGP-SPF draft, I wonder whether it's worthwhile to consider the coexistence of the traditi= onal BGP-DV protocol and the BGP-SPF protocol on a given node. If so, it se= ems that we need to maintain separate routing table instances for those two= protocols while distinguishing received packets which are corresponding to= different routing table instances, e.g., assign a dedicated label for the = BGP-SPF routing table instance so as to map received MPLS packets with that= label to the corresponding BGP-SPF routing table instance while using poli= cies to map received packets to different routing table instances at the in= gress of the BGP-SPF domain), just as what has been done for the performanc= e-based BGP mechanism (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-performan= ce-routing-01). Best regards, Xiaohu From nobody Fri Dec 22 06:20:25 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADFD12EAB2; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:20:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qx6lcPHxffMS; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A266F12EAB0; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id j14so7810099oih.3; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:20:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J26oboSX92LOULpK7z5RL4Gki/nPOR2P6CtTlrnQHR8=; b=cckKcpfNb3iEN4VjpZbii2TIUuSnoMgWnlnbAPSwC4UwS36WhDj3POzTGcFrsvKNlA SiZib56YPoRms43RiDmx4m9NQSQfoxT6t7zL2BwPyHlRAUZVc6QIG7AzGXRUC1G3hHWn fipuuduAgO+OOSe4XHAX795DPRl+VROrs94BwKDVdTuv8Y1xP3QF/w/akFHcl3+2Ymyt 7XjmBDQaIB7G/W3/KJMIauN3wvBfge9GBWoYrIj+Fxh5XM+1Ftj/q8n72t2XePFMIGA0 ngoMUIq0dXhOhvhGSrF30d4f1XMBLCMs+YmnwOXQZawd/QSuqJBiVRjMQ0UqGMLv+X98 HwTg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J26oboSX92LOULpK7z5RL4Gki/nPOR2P6CtTlrnQHR8=; b=ge9WUL/dZCM5YjFkqFzJ0Ipi52VjfmtKDKUbUSRwdYpNqr4GA7Bre9l9Y2t3mkNIVG myTDEF9x+S88wcLFcDyb3QRGBsILaOM2nRVWsVr3w1pfPPfGXaOf9bbbg9MM3SNgaLRZ 568R+4n/Asb5FDntnS/kn1pPJlna0vr7ZIegpKWH57lGzrD9qgES1RISR1yFjiC0AHn4 /6TCEnmMMTSV0IgBbZL4mKu1tOQddRNTR4jp1vSqamwsU1NJX4Ttz2SfzWO2qSVYqX2g ND1HtxeNa7gif47aCzEIsFszXuCeJV+qdpXzrkqvhNb+393uJCu2ibrJLpg4T+vUXQJD g0Gw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJuGUnQ7iG6sVieprxJBxG6r9cF2pTOmzkr8OdmhIlakl0FhBp0 x5ol/vuOrgmYYaWl9jqQMvUA/nOsoewrbr5e9oo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouiwDO8Dh1wFtkb2zyQmnO7itru3e0JHi40HQBuO6JkOAtM1Y5VPV+lt+hjKkJ1T2/pX5Ke3nGSdB5JNUlipWU= X-Received: by 10.202.182.196 with SMTP id g187mr10885207oif.216.1513952422038; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 06:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:20:21 -0500 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE304A7141@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE304A7141@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> X-Mailer: Airmail (467) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:20:21 -0500 Message-ID: To: Xuxiaohu , "dcrouting@ietf.org" Cc: lsvr@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cee705294300560ee84b7" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dcrouting] A comment on draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-spf X-BeenThere: dcrouting@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Routing in the Data Center: discussions about problems, requirements and potential solutions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 14:20:24 -0000 --001a113cee705294300560ee84b7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On December 22, 2017 at 3:27:24 AM, Xuxiaohu (xuxiaohu@huawei.com) wrote: Xiaohu: Hi! I wonder whether it's worthwhile to consider the coexistence of the traditional BGP-DV protocol and the BGP-SPF protocol on a given node. If so... Yes, I think so. That (coexistence with/separation from traditional BGP) is one of the pieces that I expect to see in a forthcoming proposed charter for lsvr =E2= =80=94 please subscribe to that list (cc=E2=80=99d here) and contribute your comme= nts and ideas there. :-) Thanks!! Alvaro. --001a113cee705294300560ee84b7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =
On December 22= , 2017 at 3:27:24 AM, Xuxiaohu (xuxi= aohu@huawei.com) wrote:

=
Xiaohu:

Hi!

I wonder whether it's worthwhile to consider the coexistenc= e of the traditional BGP-DV protocol and the BGP-SPF protocol on a given no= de. If so...

Yes, I think so.

That (coe= xistence with/separation from traditional BGP) is one of the pieces that I = expect to see in a forthcoming proposed charter for lsvr =E2=80=94 please s= ubscribe to that list (cc=E2=80=99d here) and contribute your comments and = ideas there. :-)

Thanks!!

<= p>Alvaro.

--001a113cee705294300560ee84b7--