RE: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model

[Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 1:35 PM
> To: Antoni Przygienda
> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee); [e-mail]
> 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