On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:38:20AM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 6 April 2017 at 19:17, Michael Still <[email protected]> wrote: > > FYI I made a Juniper SE submit an ER to implement this kind of > > functionality (plus some more community stuff). What I asked for > > related to this case was to be able to add this `logical-operation > > or|and|xor|not` to the end of a policy match community statement. I'll > > see if I can find the ER info if you'd like to pressure Juniper to do > > this as well. Currently I'm not sure its even been accepted to > > development queue. > > Why do vendors insist on trying to solve complex cases in their own > policy. Why not just give us ability to run lua, mruby, python or > something, pass us prefix object, and us do arbitrarily complex stuff > to it. > policy-statements/route-maps are fine for simple stuff, but create > unnecessarily difficult to maintain configs for complex cases. > > Please start adding this to RFPs, I know I'm not alone here.
Yes, I concur. Embedding a real language like lua, with common interfaces, is the only way to implement a future proof routing policy language construct. Perhaps we need to focus some energy on one of the open source BGP implementations, to create a reference implemenation of this concept, and show how its done. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
