IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Tue, 17 March 2020 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CAC3A08E5 for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 07:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 KXxoATiC2J38 for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 07:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 1BACB3A08A8 for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 07:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7F751B79589C7EDEE863 for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:56:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:56:51 +0000
Received: from dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) by dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:56:50 +0800
Received: from dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.231]) by dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.231]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:56:50 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
CC: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "bgp-autoconf@ietf.org" <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.
Thread-Index: AQHV70I9lASDS4RPqUWxt+vZ2IYdwqg4ffOAgAy5yPD//7izAIAIBZzQ
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:56:49 +0000
Message-ID: <ee273b6c53494af88708836858a40439@huawei.com>
References: <CAHw9_i+0rDUJOR3mAMAh9+whaKX0Koc_VaibbfX1zRzocOAvhw@mail.gmail.com> <20200304220727.GC32422@pfrc.org> <fd21d65cfa0f46b9a02dba4048bc260d@huawei.com> <m2sgidbae5.wl-randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2sgidbae5.wl-randy@psg.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.168.65]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp-autoconf/8IXul99bIv3wizXt48jF9ygIi80>
Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.
X-BeenThere: bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP autoconfiguration design team discussion list <bgp-autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bgp-autoconf>, <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bgp-autoconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bgp-autoconf>, <mailto:bgp-autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 14:57:17 -0000

Hi Randy, 

Based on the discussion we had on the conference call and the mail discussion between Jeff and Warren, my understanding is we may consider it useful to provide a generic mechanism to advertise the role of a router to its peer. As mentioned in Jeff's mail, maybe it could be defined as a generic ID to give flexibility to the deployment. And as said in Warren's mail, depending on the operators requirement, the role can have different meanings in different use cases, and it may carry either well-known or customized code points.

I'd like to know your and other design team member's opinions on this. Thanks.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 4:12 AM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>
> Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>;
> bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.
> 
> > Based on your discussion, it seems both of you agree with the
> > requirement to advertise the role of a router to its peer.
> >
> > I'd like to check whether other design team members also agree with
> > this?
> 
> what roles?
> 
> randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email