|
|
 |
Re: [Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:04:12 +0930
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.
|
|
|
|
