Hi Asky, No – it doesn’t match the Cisco prefix-list semantics in this respect. We started with the OpenConfig routing policy model and hence the restriction of not being able to interleave permit and deny rules in the same prefix-set. So, one can implement the OpenConfig prefix-sets with Cisco (or copy-cat) prefix-lists but not vice-versa. We wouldn’t want to change this without WG discussions. There are other BGP specific policies that don’t allow permit and deny in the same set as well (e.g., see community-sets - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model/). Thanks, Acee
From: Asky Lee <[email protected]> Date: Monday, April 20, 2020 at 7:33 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>, Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> Subject: Prefix-set in policy yang Hi Experts, How are you. I’m one engineer from ADVA. I have one question about prefix-list, can you please clarify? When I read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-09, it seems match Cisco’s route-map. I wonder whether prefix-list feature are defined somewhere as well. The difference between prefix-list and route-policy’s prefix-set is each prefix-list entry has one action permit/deny. Can you please clarify it? ipv4 prefix-list list1 10 permit 172.20.10.171/16 le 24 20 permit 172.18.0.0/16 30 deny 172.24.20.164/16 ge 25 [cid:[email protected]] Thanks, Asky Lee Please see our privacy statement at https://www.adva.com/en/about-us/legal/privacy-statement for details of how ADVA processes personal information.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
