Re: [Idr] 答复: [I2nsf] 答复: [IPsec] using BGP signaling to achieve IPsec Tunnel configuration (draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec): potential conflict with the I2NSF's Controller facilitated IPsec configuration

Alvaro Retana <> Tue, 02 April 2019 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE23D12016E; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d6WYB5n1JlXu; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 255CD12002E; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l203so9948830oia.3; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 07:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GP6jYdqSLTdAJqSTGL74q2iuXRSdrd4KOSbuICBhpEI=; b=FE4XQsODAbIF6HXIvMsO4npLa9HAKc8lTj/cKvCNRbaAK7CI3neUaEnZ+e2atjL7fk HIlhPqxDVrm5NeG1eWYvSs0u1wMSGtxli9lx7+YtpnqX7CooUjA3OIE3VQ4RejL5QCdG PJrR2RIDesscFWElLdadDcZtNaXZSh8bJ1uA7VMWv/T4+P1ioc3tBzwiGc6O23cBIoW1 Z/cLYnfoB3FBR8sj9XyjLZGpkYcWc6oWTxonNbqiKY8ekaUfx/Mj2KgXOb5E3/SGvfiR CCE+N+llWn8YHdLDuE0WvtzlIW41THyVp80tQMV5MORY8DSWjpInGQ4Rf7cJQKeemHck d11w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GP6jYdqSLTdAJqSTGL74q2iuXRSdrd4KOSbuICBhpEI=; b=tlD8c7uJZtpqg4QjkrZI0sMVWhVxpw/M5Xjaq1QTO2kFQQhAPrJNkikSGxhGLYGtB7 3Tz8+0aRaG49GKvDZbZ+YM6vGHvpK3PppNMEdVSKMjhqJqMureV2hxH7Sc5MxtC+0eiG XphPWdxzvTXmS7nOhFvJnbM/lWv4N7uEvo5hIQzocDrYllkBXP+YM7Y6ghm88cq7l3Aw UtHVlh1Nt7eoi8NHDPdHZk4Rc8SkOc69X1nGYrpFaihpdrOvFlUugQlZeIU/ze9CwGrA j4n1fMTTg/7NxCVuuKZ0RuuFfOhW0IXVdC9dritjByYsUVECP0/bW4GhC1onrDvUvzIU kRqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBG7AgumY9jfCpTL1w23gDokTAXeV5sNlehlTyTJWoAZkNyx+i fg8fiNm9TJqP251G0iKEFP0H89HBE8IUls3gUqE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHLeZ5LNVrZ4pauyidW/nRPAslXuWSBlqfGVMbw19lVwuNVYrwozYktqlMfilCFr1Bd4VSoJxp8mGPgLpkYzs=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:43c4:: with SMTP id q187mr17452827oia.45.1554214803165; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 07:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 10:20:02 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:20:01 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Linda Dunbar <>
Cc: " WG" <>, "" <>,, idr wg <>, "" <>, "<>" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003f588005858cd535"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 答复: [I2nsf] 答复: [IPsec] using BGP signaling to achieve IPsec Tunnel configuration (draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec): potential conflict with the I2NSF's Controller facilitated IPsec configuration
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:20:06 -0000

On April 2, 2019 at 5:21:09 AM, Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent
Dept) ( wrote:

[Trimmed individual addresses and consolidated (sec-ads, i2nsf-chairs) to
avoid a bounce  + bess-chairs + rtg-ads.]


Thank you all for the discussion.  I’m replying to this message to pick on
what Frank said…but in reality is a general reply to the thread.

the key point is...the function gaps each draft can fill in.

Because there are several drafts that may overlap in function and content,
I have asked John/Sue (idr-chairs) to work with Stephane/Matthew
(bess-chairs) in figuring out the overlaps and helping the authors (if
needed) to rationalize what should go forward and what is not needed
because it may be a duplicate…at least starting from the RTG area point of

Once the consolidation is done, we should have a clearer picture on the
type of interaction we need to have with i2nsf/ipsecme.

Since we’re all just getting back from Prague, please give the Chairs a
little bit of time.