[Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard
Curtis Villamizar curtis at laptoy770.fictitious.org
Mon Sep 22 18:24:42 CEST 2003
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309211712130.7588-100000 at netcore.fi>, Pekka Savola w rites: > 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. > > [...] > > > > and ipv4 and ipv6 this > > > > is not only not a problem, it is not even an inconvenience. > > > > > > A smaller issues, yes. However, from "the use of tools" perspective, > > > people will use both IPv4 and IPv6, and similar formats would be useful. > > > > They are similar formats. > > 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.) RPSLng is a superset of RPSL. After some **testing** of the RPSLng server code, the entire database will be RPSLng. The only issue will be whether RPSL only query clients will be accommodated by 1) extracting the non mp-* RPSL from any RPSLng entries that match the queries (by the server code) or 2) non mp-* RPSL will be generated for the IPv4 part of the mp-* entries when entered into the database, or 3) whether end users will have to submit non mp-* for ipv4-unicast. The point it that there are multiple ways to accommodate older client code during transition. Which method of transition to pick is something more appropriate for a RIPE meeting, not for the language spec. > > > > At some later time the server software may be able to recognize older > > > > client code and return non- mp-* entries converted from policy expresse > d > > > > as mp-* entries. At some time, probably even later, it is expected tha > t > > > > older clients will disappear. At some point it may no longer be > > > > practical to run an IPv4 only network and/or run a unicast only network > > > > (though this seems not to be "on the horizon" at the moment) and then > > > > all clients which did not understand the mp-* syntax would be> gone > > > > because they would all need that syntax to support IPv6. > > > > > > These are the issues I think will need *explicit* consideration before > > > going down the path of happily adopting RPSLng. What if there are some > > > holes in the spec or how it is implemented, or a clear view (for everyone > ) > > > on what's the overall plan for deploying RPSL and RPSLng? > > > > It was just considered above. I thought that was obvious enough since > > this is similar to past transitions and I understand how the mp-* were > > intended to be used. If you want something in the spec on transition, > > a paragraph or two from this email message can be added. I don't > > think its needed but it wouldn't hurt. > > Well, I can see multiple possible ways to do so -- so this the way forward > does seem to use a bit of phrasing. > > Something added to an appendix would likely be very useful. Good. The comment above about 3 ways to do the transition might also help. The draft authors should feel free to reword any of this as they see fit. > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings Curtis
[ rpslng Archives ]