[Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard

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.