Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG

hbluo <hbluo@bjtu.edu.cn> Thu, 21 November 2013 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <hbluo@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7783E1AE0C1 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:16:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <WzIQTAFVHtsB>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.887
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=1.012, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 WzIQTAFVHtsB for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bjtu.edu.cn (mail.bjtu.edu.cn [218.249.29.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A03F1AE028 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:16:08 -0800 (PST)
X-EYOU-SPAMVALUE: 0
X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-FROM: <hbluo@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-TO: <rrg@irtf.org>
X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-IP: 211.71.74.208
X-EMDG-VER: 4.1.0
Received: (eyou anti_spam gateway 4.1.0); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:10:38 +0800
Message-ID: <584992638.13846@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-EMDG-SMTPAUTH: hbluo@bjtu.edu.cn
Received: from 211.71.74.208 by 218.249.29.198 with SMTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:10:38 +0800
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:15:57 +0800
From: hbluo <hbluo@bjtu.edu.cn>
To: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>, lars <lars@netapp.com>
References: <20131119135800.82F7518C126@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <62E077F0-FEAE-4CC1-BFF9-07D2F409340D@tony.li> <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E02EEBB2F@eusaamb109.ericsson.se> <4D0FD559-1207-4138-9C2B-4FC44D23FDCC@tony.li> <CA+b+ERmUuWZz7yjxRWLpcAtb1kcb+bCO7=Cjbf8ow3aAsb3p5g@mail.gmail.com> <5456CCF7-F16F-44A0-AC60-19BE72949D72@netapp.com> <CAPv4CP-LZUcAz183iEXES8t3b5bwYiJu=SU9TwgZwNgjhTm=PQ@mail.gmail.com>, <584966451.30849@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.91[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <201311210815569036921@bjtu.edu.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart841136821166_=----"
Cc: "rrg@irtf.org" <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: hbluo <hbluo@bjtu.edu.cn>
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:16:11 -0000

> My feeling is that there is interesting work going on at multiple
> layers and they can learn from each other.  If the first step is a
> workshop, I suggest diversity

In that case, IMHO,it is interesting to discuss whether a future routing architecture should be default on (as the internet today), or be default off (or could be turned on when necessary).