Adding [email protected]
> On Sep 27, 2021, at 11:58 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Kris, > I agree with your analysis and proposal. Do others have comment? If not, we > should remove during AUTH48 (Chris Smiley copied). > Thanks, > Acee > > On 9/17/21, 10:55 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of Kris Lambrechts" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
