From rps-owner@ISI.EDU Fri Nov 9 10:28:03 2001 Received: from zephyr.isi.edu (zephyr.isi.edu [128.9.160.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15176 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:28:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11053 for rps-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:07:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11048 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:07:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA9F8Eg19775 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 07:08:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from x47.ripe.net (x47.ripe.net [193.0.1.47]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fA9F87q20584 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:08:07 +0100 Received: from localhost (engin@localhost) by x47.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fA9F87g09298 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:08:07 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x47.ripe.net: engin owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:08:07 +0100 (CET) From: Engin Gunduz To: Subject: export-comps attribute question Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-rps@ISI.EDU Precedence: rps-list Hi, A question about export-comps attribute of route class: Would we need to have a coresponding route object to each component in export-comps attribute of the route objects? Let me clarify the question with the example in section 8.1 of RFC2622, figure 31: route: 128.8.0.0/15 origin: AS1 components: {128.8.0.0/15^-} aggr-mtd: outbound AS-ANY export-comps: {128.8.8.0/24} The explanation says: "Figure 31 shows an example of an outbound aggregation. In this example, the more specific 128.8.8.0/24 is exported outside AS1 in addition to the aggregate. This is useful, when 128.8.8.0/24 is multi-homed site to AS1 with some other AS." but it does not explicitely say if a route object like: route: 128.8.8.0/24 origin: AS1 would have to exist or not. If not, then this would mean a route object in an RPSL db may correspond to multiple prefixes in BPG tables (so the route object in fig. 31 would specify two prefixes: 128.8.0.0/15 with origin AS1 and 128.8.8.0/24 with origin AS1). Is my understanding correct here? Thanks, -engin From rps-owner@ISI.EDU Fri Nov 9 11:18:10 2001 Received: from zephyr.isi.edu (zephyr.isi.edu [128.9.160.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16970 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13004 for rps-outgoing; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12999 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:00:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA9G1Rg06084 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ripe.net (x43.ripe.net [193.0.1.43]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fA9G1Lq32477; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:01:21 +0100 Message-ID: <3BEBFDD1.8000702@ripe.net> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 17:01:21 +0100 From: Andrei Robachevsky Organization: RIPE NCC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Engin Gunduz CC: rps@ISI.EDU Subject: Re: export-comps attribute question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-rps@ISI.EDU Precedence: rps-list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Engin Gunduz wrote: > Hi, > > A question about export-comps attribute of route > class: Would we need to have a coresponding route > object to each component in export-comps attribute > of the route objects? Let me clarify the question > with the example in section 8.1 of RFC2622, figure > 31: > > route: 128.8.0.0/15 > origin: AS1 > components: {128.8.0.0/15^-} > aggr-mtd: outbound AS-ANY > export-comps: {128.8.8.0/24} > > The explanation says: > "Figure 31 shows an example of an outbound aggregation. In this > example, the more specific 128.8.8.0/24 is exported outside AS1 in > addition to the aggregate. This is useful, when 128.8.8.0/24 is > multi-homed site to AS1 with some other AS." > > but it does not explicitely say if a route object like: > > route: 128.8.8.0/24 > origin: AS1 > > would have to exist or not. > > If not, then this would mean a route object in an RPSL db > may correspond to multiple prefixes in BPG tables > (so the route object in fig. 31 would specify two prefixes: > 128.8.0.0/15 with origin AS1 and 128.8.8.0/24 with origin AS1). > > Is my understanding correct here? I think it is fairly correct. In my understanding the route object is used to collect prefixes according to a certain criterion: origin, set membership, etc. When it comes to more granular or complex policies, the authors open the backdoor: one can explicitly specify rpsl prefix expression. Then again, my question would be: since one of the main goals of RR is to build router config are these attributes used by, say, RtConfig? If no - I am confused, if yes - then we need to consider them in RRCC. Andrei > > Thanks, > -engin > > > > From rps-owner@ISI.EDU Mon Nov 12 13:41:41 2001 Received: from zephyr.isi.edu (zephyr.isi.edu [128.9.160.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14746 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:41:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05584 for rps-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:22:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05579 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:22:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from zen.packetdesign.com (adsl-64-175-115-160.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.175.115.160]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fACINEg07466 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cengiz@localhost) by zen.packetdesign.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fACIMDl24556; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:22:13 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: zen.packetdesign.com: cengiz set sender to cengiz@packetdesign.com using -f Subject: Re: export-comps attribute question From: Cengiz Alaettinoglu To: Engin Gunduz Cc: rps@ISI.EDU In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.99.1+cvs.2001.11.07.16.47 (Preview Release) Date: 12 Nov 2001 10:22:13 -0800 Message-Id: <1005589333.17002.54.camel@zen.packetdesign.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-rps@ISI.EDU Precedence: rps-list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Engin, This is not different than an aut-num which has export: to ASx announce {128.8.8.0/24} Hence, the two should be treated the same way. RPSL does not require a route object in both cases. However, RPSL allows repositories to have additional rules for example to require a route object... On Fri, 2001-11-09 at 07:08, Engin Gunduz wrote: > > Hi, > > A question about export-comps attribute of route > class: Would we need to have a coresponding route > object to each component in export-comps attribute > of the route objects? Let me clarify the question > with the example in section 8.1 of RFC2622, figure > 31: > > route: 128.8.0.0/15 > origin: AS1 > components: {128.8.0.0/15^-} > aggr-mtd: outbound AS-ANY > export-comps: {128.8.8.0/24} > > The explanation says: > "Figure 31 shows an example of an outbound aggregation. In this > example, the more specific 128.8.8.0/24 is exported outside AS1 in > addition to the aggregate. This is useful, when 128.8.8.0/24 is > multi-homed site to AS1 with some other AS." > > but it does not explicitely say if a route object like: > > route: 128.8.8.0/24 > origin: AS1 > > would have to exist or not. > > If not, then this would mean a route object in an RPSL db > may correspond to multiple prefixes in BPG tables > (so the route object in fig. 31 would specify two prefixes: > 128.8.0.0/15 with origin AS1 and 128.8.8.0/24 with origin AS1). > > Is my understanding correct here? > > Thanks, > -engin > > > >