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

I guess they are talking here about TOR, ACCESS, SPINE, SUPERSPINE, GWY ...

I guess in general it may be very useful, but in BGP itself and make it
transitive ...

Not sure how it changes anything during the basic session establishment
phase. Maybe to auto apply different peer template ?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:57 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> wrote:

> 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>rg>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>et>;
> > 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
>
> --
> Bgp-autoconf mailing list
> Bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bgp-autoconf
>