The new Multi-protocol syntax

["Lu, Ping" <]

As I read the new proposal for support the multi-protocol syntax in RPSL-NG,
I would like to raise some questions that are not a direct reponse to the
proposal but more of a pricinple to how do we use the information to figure
out other peer's routing policy:

1. How do you make certain information [MANDATORY/OPTIONAL] in case of
multi-protocol.
In RPSL there is only ONE address family so no confusion there but in
RPSL-NG we will have several choices.
So if I want customer to input IPV4 MANDATORY and IPV6 OPTIONAL, how do I do
this in RPSL-NG ?
Or in a more general sense, in RPSL I can make an attribute MANDATORY or
OPTIONAL but in RPSL-NG how do I make an sub-attribute MANDATORY or OPTIONAL
?
 

2. Is BGP == MBGP ?
If I say 
mimport: afi ipv4 from AS1 action pref=1; accept as-foo
is it the same as
import: from AS1 action pref=1; accept as-foo
? 
Or in a more general sense, am I running BGP only so no IPV6 policy or is it
I am running MBGP but don't accept IPV6 ?


3. How do we exchange information between RPSL and RPSL-NG ?For most ISPs we
will need to mirror other registries to check their policies (matched import
with export ?). So how do you merge RPSL registries with RPSL-NG registries
?
For example: how do I match "import:" (RPSL) with "mexport:" (RPSL-NG) or
"mimport:" with "export:" ?

4. Is it IPV4 only or ANY ?
How about inter-attribute relationship ? 
For example: Is the "tech-c:" in aut-num object for IPV4 or IPV6 or he/she
takes care any protocol ?
How about inter-class relationship ?
For example: Can I use AS-FOO on IPV4 or IPV6 or ANY ?
How about inter-rr relationship ?
For example: Can I use AS-CUSTOMER from RR1(RPSL) to filter for RR2(RPSL-NG)
?


Don't give me that the language should be seperate from the operation crap.
If RPSL-NG can't serve the purpose of exchange route policy clearly between
RRs then it failed its design goal in the first place.


Ping Lu
Cable & Wireless USA
Network Tools and Analysis Group
W: +1-703-292-2359
E: plu@localhost