Implementation of RIPE-181++

 Jessica Yu <jyy at merit.edu> writes:
  * Currently, in the 81++ document, thought it is not written explicitly, it 
  * implies that if one does not list certain AS or nets in as-in/out, it means
  *  
  * the opposite policy of what mentioned.
  * For example, if AS1 has the policy of
  * 
  * as-in: from AS100 1 accept AS690 AS200
  * means from AS100 it will only accept AS690 and AS200 and NOT rest of the AS
  * s.
  * 
  * as-in: from AS300 1 accept NOT (AS301 AS302)
  * means from AS300, it will accept ANY ASs except AS301 and AS302.
  * 
Right - this is implicit and always has been. In fact this is implicit with all
rules even in life isn't it ?
Its like if you are to be given something, say three bananas and
three oranges and you say I want three bananas, you get three bananas. If on the
other hand you say I dont want three bananas you get three oranges or am I
just oversimplifying things comparing routes to fruit, but it was not seen
as a problem in RIPE-81.

  * Same rule can not be applied to interas-in/out since according to the rule
  * of interaction between the two set, interas-in will also accept whatever
  * the difference between the as-in and the union of the interas-ins.  This
  * means that if an AS has the policy of NOT accepting a particular AS or rout
  * es
  * at a particular connection, its interas-in has to always explicitly list th
  * e 
  * NOT's.
  * 
Right - but this is obvious to me at least.

  * as-in: from AS100 1 accept AS690 AS200
  * interas-in: from AS100 L1 R1 (pref=1) accept NOT AS200
  * (he can not say here 'interas-in: from AS100 L1 R1 (pref=1) accept AS690' a
  * nd 
  * expect it implies NOT accept AS200) 
  * interas-in: from AS100 L1 R1 (pref=1) accept AS690 AS200
  *  
  * That is, one can not expect the same as what him gets from as-in where if h
  * e
  * list what to accept then he does not need to list what he does not want to 
  * accept.  This needs to be explained in the document. 
  * 
Does this really need to be explained - we can spell out too much. I think it
is clear what the implicit nature of the NOT or otherwise is.

  * 						--Jessica

		--Tony



-------- Logged at  Tue Oct 4 22:57:37 MET 1994  ---------