[db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities
Mark Prior mrp at mrp.net
Mon Nov 13 12:35:55 CET 2017
On 13/11/17 21:52, Job Snijders wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Mark Prior <mrp at mrp.net> wrote: >> On 13/11/17 21:36, Job Snijders wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Prior <mrp at mrp.net> wrote: >>>> In this particular case I would suggest that you do want the tool to >>>> complain rather than ignore the new rp-attribute. >>> >>> Why would you break backwards compatibility? >>> >> It's only broken if you include a large community formatted string in >> your policy and your tool doesn't support it. In that case I would like >> the script to break rather than load a broken configuration to a router >> that potentially causes chaos. > > OK, but what about the tools from other people/organisations that parse your > autnum object? > > I'm not sure why you ignore the recommendation "When changing the dictionary, > full compatibility should be maintained." without offering any > arguments on what the > benefits for doing so are. > I am concerned about how a tool that doesn't understand them copes. If a clause using large communities is just ignored then it might change a restrictive export policy into an ANY without any warning. If that was likely I would prefer it to break so I would know and could fix the policy and/or tool. As for breaking other people's interpretation of your policy that is also probably a good thing for the same reason. I would be interested to know about a use case for people parsing other people's policy objects. Mark.
[ db-wg Archives ]