[Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard
Mark Prior mrp at mrp.net
Mon Sep 22 01:34:12 CEST 2003
Pekka Savola wrote: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >>>>Since policy is currently >>>>quite different between unicase and multicase >>> >>>A fatal assumption. In about all academic networks and backbone transit >>>providers -- which are significant users of RPSLng -- multicast and >>>unicast topologies are very much the same. >>> >>>Ours (and many others') policies are identical. >> >>I seriously doubt this is common unless you have a small number of >>peers. The majority of providers support IPv4 unicast only so policy >>for multicast or IPv6 is meaningless. > > > You fail to see that *we* set up the policies common to everyone we peer > with; we advertise both BGP unicast and multicast routes to everybody > equally. Almost nobody uses them, though, but that's not *our* problem. > We just wnt to have an equal policy for everyone. > Just in case anything thinks Pekka is alone in doing that I also consider the protocol irrelevant in my policy. Whether the peer wants all of them is another matter totally unrelated to specifying my policy. > That's good. Taking an example with IRRToolSet, I want to embed both RPSL > and RPSLng format attributes or commands in a single text document, which > I will pass through IRRToolSet _once_. (e.g., requiring to run the tool > twice, once for each support with different command-line arguments is > unreasonable.) > Personally I would prefer it if RPSLng was a super set of RPSL and from my point of view RPSLng policy = RPSL policy would be really nice. I still fail to see why we need most of the mp-* stuff anyway. Mark.
[ rpslng Archives ]