Modification of RIPE-181's as-in/as-out attributes

Actually, I'd like to even extend this further; it would be wonderful 
to have the "<aut-num>" of both the "as-in" and "as-out" attributes 
become an expression--called, say, "<as-list expression>"--more like 
the "<routing policy expression>" which appears later in these
attributes.

Whereas the <routing policy expression> evaluates to "a list of one
or more ASes, AS Macros, Communities, Route Lists," the <as-list
expression> would evaluate to one or more ASs, and would allow the
Boolean operators which can be used in the <routing policy expression>.

This is particularly usefule for customers of rps/RIPE-181 who wish
to express their policy in the easiest manner--e.g., with NOT, one can
specify the set one does _not_ want, as well as the set one wants, and
there are a lot of cases where the use of NOT (ASxx ) would be very
helpful.

If the <aut-num> -> <as-list> transition makes sense, I think we 
should wrap the addition of the Boolean operators into this, as
well, so that there is a nice, complete syntax for this element of
the as-in/as-out attributes (or their equivalent), rather than a
"half-baked" version.

How does this sound?

Steve R.
==
  >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 16:11:59 -0400
  >From: "Steven J. Richardson" <sjr at merit.edu>
  >Message-Id: <199510242011.QAA26472 at home.merit.edu>
  >To: rps at isi.edu
  >Subject: Modification of RIPE-181's as-in/as-out attributes    
  >Cc: db-wg at ripe.net, sjr at home.merit.edu
  >Status: RO
  >
  >In the process of reviewing RIPE-181-represented policies, I've
  >noticed an opportunity for what I think would be a useful
  >modification of the as-in/as-out attributes of the aut-num 
  >object.
  >
  >Currently, the syntax for these attributes is given as:
  >
  >  as-in:  from <aut-num> <cost> accept <routing policy expression>
  >
  >  as-out:  to <aut-num> announce <routing policy expression>
  >
  >I see policies which would be usefully condensed via allowing
  >the <aut-num> to be an AS *macro*, too.
  >
  >E.g.:
  >
  >aut-num:  99999
  >as-name:  SOMEAS
  >...
  >as-in:	from AS10 100 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS20 100 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS30 100 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS40 100 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS50 100 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS60 100 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS70 100 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS110 150 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS120 150 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS130 150 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS140 150 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS150 150 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS160 150 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS170 150 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >
  >
  >could be equivalent to:
  >
  >aut-num:  99999
  >...
  >as-in:	from AS-SOMEAS-100-NO-DEFAULT 100 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >as-in:	from AS-SOMEAS-150-NO-DEFAULT 150 accept ANY AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}
  >
  >
  >with the macro definitions:
  >
  >as-macro: AS-SOMEAS-100-NO-DEFAULT
  >descr:  ASs which AS-99999 accepts at pref. 100 (any but
  >descr:  the default route)
  >as-list: AS110 AS120 AS130 AS140 AS150 AS160 AS170
  >...
  >
  >as-macro: AS-SOMEAS-150-NO-DEFAULT
  >descr:  ASs which AS-99999 accepts at pref. 150 (any but
  >descr:  the default route)
  >as-list: AS10 AS20 AS30 AS40 AS50 AS60 AS70
  >...
  >
  >(The same could be said of as-out lines.)
  >
  >What do you think?
  >
  >
  >Steve Richardson/Merit