[Idr] Implementation report of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis
"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Fri, 01 June 2018 02:08 UTC
Return-Path: <jie.dong@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 A9125124B0A; Thu, 31 May 2018 19:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 piP8Uj-p47qG; Thu, 31 May 2018 19:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 D8F6312426E; Thu, 31 May 2018 19:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CA0211757AFF5; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 03:08:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 03:08:08 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 10:08:00 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
CC: "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Implementation report of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis
Thread-Index: AdP5TTl3DGukY4seQyq+9aetBhh/qw==
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 02:08:00 +0000
Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927A6D03D94@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.151.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927A6D03D94NKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oenVpF7s-mC-Jt021IhYnVfWJZk>
Subject: [Idr] Implementation report of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 02:08:17 -0000
Hi all, During the preparation of the shepherd write-up of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, I noticed that we didn't ask for implementation information of this draft. Although there are many implementation and deployment of RFC 5575, it would be helpful to know if the changes in the -bis document have been implemented. The authors and implementers are invited to report their implementations or implementation plan of this document. Best regards, Jie
- [Idr] Implementation report of draft-ietf-idr-rfc… Dongjie (Jimmy)