From nobody Wed Dec 13 23:38:07 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietf.org Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE811242EA; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:30:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: "IETF Announcement List" Cc: victor@jvknet.com, gunter@vandevelde.cc, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsvr@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.67.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Message-ID: <151320065528.29995.16506651199948659318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:30:55 -0800 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 23:38:06 -0800 Subject: [Lsvr] New Non-WG Mailing List: LSVR- Link State Vector Routing X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Link State Vector Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 21:30:55 -0000 A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: lsvr@ietf.org Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=lsvr To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr Purpose: This list is for discussion related to architectural, standardization and manageability aspects for Link State Vector Routing. For additional information, please contact the list administrators. From nobody Fri Dec 22 06:20:30 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsvr@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: [Lsvr] [Dcrouting] A comment on draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-spf X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Vector Routing 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--