Re: [Srcomp] Section 3.2.1
peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Tue, 25 May 2021 01:09 UTC
Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7A73A00AE for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 May 2021 18:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 4Atnkhympv5a for <srcomp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 May 2021 18:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 94F9F3A00C3 for <srcomp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 May 2021 18:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 4F242F914BEBC264E288 for <srcomp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 May 2021 09:08:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 3C5015034422CD668E84; Tue, 25 May 2021 09:08:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 14P18mkb012828; Tue, 25 May 2021 09:08:48 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 25 May 2021 09:08:47 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 09:08:47 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc60ac4e1f81dca933
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202105250908479465336@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB53166A9DE0EC86F77F6FF006AE269@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: BL0PR05MB53166A9DE0EC86F77F6FF006AE269@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: srcomp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 14P18mkb012828
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/srcomp/GLMKM13Dom2zvtvbPDKEmLHjkSg>
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Section 3.2.1
X-BeenThere: srcomp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <srcomp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/srcomp/>
List-Post: <mailto:srcomp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp>, <mailto:srcomp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 01:09:08 -0000
Hi Ron, According draft-requirement, you would see: o F.PEER: Supports BGP peering SID functionality as described in [RFC8402] and [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] o F.BGP: Supports BGP VPNs as functionally described in [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] Regards, PSF 原始邮件 发件人：RonBonica 收件人：srcomp@ietf.org; 日 期 ：2021年05月25日 04:06 主 题 ：[Srcomp] Section 3.2.1 -- Srcomp mailing list Srcomp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp Folks, In Section 3.2.1, SRv6 Functionality, are F.Peer and F.BGP redundant with one another? If not, does anybody remember the difference between them? Ron Juniper Business Use Only
- [Srcomp] Section 3.2.1 Ron Bonica
- Re: [Srcomp] Section 3.2.1 peng.shaofu
- Re: [Srcomp] Section 3.2.1 Ron Bonica