IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 05 April 2017 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A01F127863 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 O7IoY3OGpAf6 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4811A1250B8 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.36.81.153;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <009201d2a8a2$2a9ac4c0$7fd04e40$@ndzh.com> <15b2f3d76e8.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <15b2f3d76e8.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:15:41 -0400
Message-ID: <00bd01d2ae0e$b9fb1220$2df13660$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BE_01D2ADED.32ECCD80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQDXwzi4B96BBr1TfUCFM48H2sYUSwLMXWpio5Yz2bA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/b8jQIYoqAvlvSfuRcanQ1MLdzuE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:20:45 -0000

Lou:

 

Let me recheck.  I thought there was something relating to the MP-BGP that
was not covered.   I'll get back to you by Thursday am. 

 

Sue 

 

From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 11:17 AM
To: Susan Hares; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types

 

Hi Sue,

I took another look at bgp types and the only thing that jumps out at me as
common that isn't already covered is enumeration of protocols  (for
potential use in route redistribution and interface config).  We can
certainly consider this if this what you were thinking about.

Are there are types you think we overlooked?

Lou

On March 29, 2017 11:41:25 AM "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

RTGWG DT: 

 

Just curious, did the DT consider BGP routing types?  If so, where did you
decide BGP routing types were not common routing types?  

 

Sue 

 

 

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg%40ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email