Hi, I have been working on an implementation of [email protected] and [email protected] and I'm struggling to implement a pattern that I think is very common among routing policies.
The problem I'm seeing is with the policy-result leaf under actions. It is of type policy-result-type meaning that it can be either accept-route or reject-route with a default of reject-route. As per section 5. Policy evaluation, all processing ends when either of these is encountered. That would mean only one statement in a policy can ever be processed. The first paragraph of section 5 suggests the presence of those actions is optional however: > If the actions include either accept-route or reject-route actions, > evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and no further policy > statement is evaluated. In any vendor implementation I'm familiar with it is possible, and common in practice, to combine actions (i.e. set a BGP community or local-preference) from various statements which are processed in order by either implicitly or explicitly continuing on to the next statement. So my proposal here is to remove the default statement from the policy-result, which would signify an implicit continuation to the next statement. Or with the same net effect, you could add a next-statement enum to the policy-result-types to make the choice explicit. I feel like either change would make it much easier to write elegant, compact and easy-to-understand policies (and to port existing policies). Still, if this goes against your intended design, it would be good to fix any wording in the draft that implies that these actions are optional. Thank you, Kris Lambrechts _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
