LAST CALL -- draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt has been submitted
Mon May 31 13:30:34 CEST 2004
On Sat, 29 May 2004, Simon Leinen wrote: > Short version: Let's ship it! > > Long version: > > I think the current version is Good Enough, and it's high time we get > this out as an RFC, so that the routing registries implement it and we > (ISPs that have peerings other than IPv4 unicast) can use it. > > Personally I'm not convinced that the current defaulting semantics in > the "mp-..." attributes are optimal, but they seem to be close to the > best compromise that we can achieve. My reservation is that we > default mp-... without "afi" qualifier to default to exactly the four > AFI/SAFIs of ipv4.unicast, ipv4.multicast, ipv6.unicast, > ipv6.multicast, and this set of four AFI/SAFIs doesn't seem to be > guaranteed future-proof. But I don't care, I don't think I'll be > using the defaults anyway (look at AS559 in the RIPE test whois > registry at rpslng.ripe.net, port 53001, for how I intend to use > RPSLng). By the time people will want different defaults - either > because IPv4 or IPv6 or multicast (re-)become exotic, or something > else becomes widespread - we simply won't be able to seamlessly change > those defaults. But probably by that time it will be a good idea to > base the routing registry on something completely different anyway. > > A unified grammar (maybe even in RFC2234-compatible ABNF!) would be > great, but let's leave this for a future RFC that replaces both RFC > 2622 and the RPSLng RFC. > > Regards, > -- > Simon. Hello, I strongly agree with Simon. This is already suitable enough to be taken to the next step (the deployment that will enable non-v4-unicast-only ISPs to express their own routing policies). Regards, ./Carlos -------------- IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (135072/470), naming (millions) and... people!"
[ rpslng Archive ]