I was just poking to have fun since I fought (and implemented) the RPSL wars to be mildly blown off by ISPs telling me [what, sharing our access lists ? you claim you can anonymize them fully ? nice but nah, sorry ] ? ;-)
Answers expected, I'll look it up once some first version is available. More than RPSL ? intriguing. RPSL was a closed algebra with closure so I really want to see how this baby is even better ;-) Linear programming ? thanks --- tony An idealist believes that the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run. ~~~ Sidney J. Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 1:35 PM > To: Antoni Przygienda > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee); [email protected] > Subject: Re: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 08:20:51PM +0000, Antoni Przygienda wrote: > > > That's really where we're heading with regard to this model. While > > > BGP is obviously the first target, this is also the beginnings of a > > > fundamental policy algebra that multiple protocols may share. > > > > > [Tony saiz:] > > > > Interesting, we're bringing RPSL back ? > > I missed the RPSL wars, but got to heavily soak in their results for a few > years. :-) > > I think we'll see this go a lot further than RPSL since we're really dealing > with > internal router configuration rather than trying to express such policy in an > inter- > provider scenario. > > > And if so, providers are willing to share their policies finally ;-) ? > > Not a chance. > > What's mildly amusing is that some discussions about route-leak mitigation > (see > discussion in grow and (s)idr) may have implications about "disclosing enough" > to do the job. I owe those WGs a writeup of the idea. > > -- Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
