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.

I am not saying this is a problem.  I just trying to point out there is a
different rule in this aspect between as-in/out and interas-in/out.

  >* 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.

It may be obvious to you and me since we are working on it.  But it may not 
obvious to potential users.  It does not hurt to point it out. 

 >* 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.

In my opinion, it is given the difference between the as-in/out and interas-in/
out and also if people make mistake on this, their policy will be impacted. It
does not hurt to add a couple of sentences to point this out.

						--Jessica  



-------- Logged at  Tue Oct 4 23:14:07 MET 1994  ---------