LAST CALL -- draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt has been submitted

On Sat, 29 May 2004, Simon Leinen wrote:

> Short version: Let's ship it!
>
> Long version:
>
> I think the current version is Good Enough, and it's high time we get
> this out as an RFC, so that the routing registries implement it and we
> (ISPs that have peerings other than IPv4 unicast) can use it.
>
> Personally I'm not convinced that the current defaulting semantics in
> the "mp-..." attributes are optimal, but they seem to be close to the
> best compromise that we can achieve.  My reservation is that we
> default mp-... without "afi" qualifier to default to exactly the four
> AFI/SAFIs of ipv4.unicast, ipv4.multicast, ipv6.unicast,
> ipv6.multicast, and this set of four AFI/SAFIs doesn't seem to be
> guaranteed future-proof.  But I don't care, I don't think I'll be
> using the defaults anyway (look at AS559 in the RIPE test whois
> registry at rpslng.ripe.net, port 53001, for how I intend to use
> RPSLng).  By the time people will want different defaults - either
> because IPv4 or IPv6 or multicast (re-)become exotic, or something
> else becomes widespread - we simply won't be able to seamlessly change
> those defaults.  But probably by that time it will be a good idea to
> base the routing registry on something completely different anyway.
>
> A unified grammar (maybe even in RFC2234-compatible ABNF!) would be
> great, but let's leave this for a future RFC that replaces both RFC
> 2622 and the RPSLng RFC.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Simon.


Hello,

I strongly agree with Simon.
This is already suitable enough to be taken to the next step (the
deployment that will enable non-v4-unicast-only ISPs to express their
own routing policies).

Regards,

./Carlos
--------------                             IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt
            Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  http://www.fccn.pt

 "Internet is just routes (135072/470), naming (millions) and... people!"