IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16

"John G. Scudder" <jgs@bgp.nu> Tue, 07 July 2020 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jgs@bgp.nu>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5833A0E45; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LENIO4gtXNCz; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucky.bgp.nu (guest3.bgp.nu [147.28.0.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 161FE3A097D; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bgp.nu (bgp.nu [147.28.0.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lucky.bgp.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B788C60768C5; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:36:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.68] (162-225-191-79.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [162.225.191.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bgp.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ED4D2002F29; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-BFBDA168-3006-4C49-ACFE-44A6AFBE2862"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@bgp.nu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 11:35:01 -0400
Message-Id: <D0B93C7C-BA13-42B5-B6CF-FCCC4BCAD880@bgp.nu>
References: <221C53C4-3482-4420-B5F3-51CD847E1222@cisco.com>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.all@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <221C53C4-3482-4420-B5F3-51CD847E1222@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17F80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/VtES8iOjvWoAGkisQqIi860ACAE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 15:35:06 -0000

Hi Acee,

> On Jul 7, 2020, at 11:16 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes. I’d say we should just use the ip-prefix type from RFC 6021. This type has the right semantics.
> 
> However, I’m wondering how we do the mask-length-lower checking with the union. I imagine it should be possible.
> 

How would you test the constraint on mask-length-upper if you use ip-prefix?

—John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email