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

In message <3F6FB8BC.5000506 at mrp.net>, Mark Prior writes:
> Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> 
> > The default right now for the non mp-* import, export, etc is to
> > assume ipv4-unicast.  Maybe what you want is adding the option to the
> > existing non mp-* syntax to specify other protocol.  What might be
> > better is to keep the idea of mp-* but make the default protocol
> > ip-everything ({ipv4,ipv6}-{uni,multi}cast).  At the very least we
> > need an ipv4-all and ipv6-all.  The ip-all or ip-everything would be
> > shorthand for ipv4-unicast,ipv6-unicast,ipv4-multicast,ipv6-multicast,
> > which is a lot to type.  If a lot of providers have common policy then
> > omitting any protocol spec could default to ip-everything.
> 
> I would prefer that the meaning be taken from the context of its use. If 
> your policy is the same, irrespective of protocol, then a single import 
> statement is sufficent and from a policy statement point of view it 
> probably doesn't matter if it is read as ipv4 unicast or ip anything or 
> ... It is the application of the policy statement where the intent is 
> important and one would hope the user knows what they are doing. This 
> would mean that the syntax of the tool using the policy might now say 
> use the import/export policy relating to this AS number but I only need 
> unicast IPv4 here so just get me the appropriate bits.
> 
> If you do actually have different policy for different protocols then 
> you probably want an additional mechanism that specifies that the policy 
> fragment only applies to that protocol. In this case you could add the 
> appropriate protocol modifier to the statement. I would expect that this 
> is the exception rather than the rule in real life.
> 
> > For something like an mp-import if you specify ip-everything (may that
> > is needed) then you can mix ipv4 and ipv6 addresses and the code
> > should figure it out.  If you submit an autnum with import it would
> > imply ipv4-unicast.  If you submit an sutnum (could be the same
> > autnum) with mp-import but no protocol specified it would be
> > ip-everything.  Does that sound like an improvement to you?
> 
> I don't see the point of the mp-import. I would see import implying ip 
> everything. I would think it is rare for anyone to use someone else's 
> autnum, or in fact rely on anyone else's sets, so I don't see the danger 
> of using an old RPSL only tool with RPSLng data.
> 
> Mark.


Mark,

You might be right about no one using other peoples autnum and if they
are using it for some sort of analysis, they are probably
sophisticated enough users to keep their tool collection up to date.

Curtis