IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Wed, 11 July 2018 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFA6130DF7; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:27:01 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 t-UrMmTw1UmF; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:26:58 -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 38E57130E18; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2B354FF16F3E0; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:26:54 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:26:55 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.132]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.22]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:26:49 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery@ietf.org" <draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery
Thread-Index: AdQY3ZgTPylai0FFTx6TtuTV7fzVrQAd8uXw
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:26:48 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B0B0AFC@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858DC3B8B4C@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858DC3B8B4C@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.157.238]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B0B0AFCsjceml521mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/24GbJJVov8QxCDWH2BvjTl2QJgo>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:27:02 -0000

Support,

Linda

·¢¼þÈË: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] ´ú±í Susan Hares
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2018Äê7ÔÂ3ÈÕ 1:09
ÊÕ¼þÈË: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
³­ËÍ: draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery@ietf.org<mailto:draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery@ietf.org>
Ö÷Ìâ: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery

Greetings:

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery (July 2 ¨C July 16).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery/

The authors of this draft should send their IPR statements in response to this email.  I hope the authors will ihelp their vacationing co-authors to respond by July 7th.

The WG should consider the following:

1)      Does BGP need to have an autodiscovery mechanism for peers within Data Centers?

2)      Does this mechanism work for other deployments?



3)      If so, should be passed in BGP Hello message?

Or should it be a part of another protocol (e..g. LLDP, BFD, etc).


4)      Does this interact with any of the LSVR work?

I want to thank the authors for their patience while we sorted through some of the WG LC for other drafts.  We decided to wait until some of those discussion were cleared up prior to starting a new WG Adoption call.


Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email