IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 0AF893A084B for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:12:30 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 8Iz92_a_tfrw for <bgp-autoconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 9B3153A084D for <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1jCUBr-0004B0-7P; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:12:23 +0000
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:12:18 -0700
Message-ID: <m2sgidbae5.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "bgp-autoconf@ietf.org" <bgp-autoconf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <fd21d65cfa0f46b9a02dba4048bc260d@huawei.com>
References: <CAHw9_i+0rDUJOR3mAMAh9+whaKX0Koc_VaibbfX1zRzocOAvhw@mail.gmail.com> <20200304220727.GC32422@pfrc.org> <fd21d65cfa0f46b9a02dba4048bc260d@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp-autoconf/l7bA3Ya7tbKgbXvxh26x16AbclI>
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:12:30 -0000

> 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