- rpslng - mailman.ripe.net

Prototype of RPSLng Whois Server
by DB Role Account 28 Jun '04

28 Jun '04

[ Apologies for duplicate messages ] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Software Engineering Group provides an RPSLng prototype whois server on host rpslng.ripe.net, port 53001. RPSLng is an effort to extend the RPSL language, enabling the language to document routing policies for the IPv6 and multicast address families currently used in the Internet. The prototype RPSLng whois server has been updated to implement draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt the latest Internet Draft of the RPSLng effort: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt One discrepancy between the draft and the prototype server is that, the optional list of prefixes between the '{' and '}' in the "mnt-routes:" attributes of AUT-NUM and ROUTE6 objects has not been implemented. This functionality will be added later. The prototype database contains a snapshot of the RIPE Whois Database. It can be updated by sending mails to <rpslng-auto(a)ripe.net>. Please note, this database is only for test purposes and updates performed on it will NOT be reflected on the production RIPE Whois Database. The prototype RPSLng server was put into production in May 2003. We have refreshed the contents of the prototype database using a recent snapshot from the live RIPE Whois Database. We have kept the ROUTE6 objects, as well as AUT-NUM objects with "mp-*" attributes, while refreshing the contents. Up-to-date details can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/db/rpslng Regards, Shane Kerr Software Engineering Department Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt has been submitted
by Larry J. Blunk 31 May '04

31 May '04

The draft is available at www.radb.net/rpslng-05.html. The structured syntax has been updated to reflect comments by Cengiz and Mark. Note that the optional afi field is now outside the brackets in refine and except expressions. I believe this is simpler and more intuitive. We may wish to simplify further and only allow an initial afi specification on policy expressions (similar to the optional protocol fields). However, I don't have a strong opinion on this. -Larry

7 7

RPSLng and nested refine/except expressions
by Larry J. Blunk 12 May '04

12 May '04

In the -04 version of the RPSLng draft, the structured policy syntax was updated to allow nested refines and excepts in policy expressions. I.e. refine { <expression> refine { <expression> } } Examples of such expressions are given both RFC2622 and the RPSLng draft. However, the original RFC2622 syntax did not actually allow such expressions. However, in the process of implementing and running the syntax check on existing objects, I have found examples of the following: refine { <expression> } refine { <expression> } See, for example, AS7574 in the RADB. Unfortunately, such expressions are invalid in the lastest RPSLng draft. Are such expressions semantically identical to nested refines/excepts? Should both this form and the nested form be allowed. I have come up with a minor modification to the -04 syntax that would allow both, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea or not. -Larry

3 3

rpslcheck utility vs rpslng-auto@ripe.net
by Dimitrios Kalogeras 04 May '04

04 May '04

Hi to all of you, I am using the rpslcheck utility from the IRRToolSet 4.8.1 distribution before submiting them to the rpslng-auto(a)ripe.net. Although the rpslcheck tool provides error free result, the backend system from ripe responses with error ? Do you know if there is any differences between them ? Thanks, Dimitrios .PS I suppose there is an error in the page http://www.ripe.net/db/rpslng/ . The reason is that although it is stated that there is an RPSLng prototype Whois server on host rpslng.ripe.net, port 53001 the response from this server leads me to apnic. is this correct ? ajax# whois -h rpslng.ripe.net -p 53001 as5408 % [whois.apnic.net node-1] % Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html %ERROR:101: no entries found % % No entries found in the selected source(s). % [whois.apnic.net node-2] % Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html %ERROR:101: no entries found % % No entries found in the selected source(s). -- -- Dimitrios K. Kalogeras Electrical Engineer Ph.D. Network Manager NTUA/GR-Net Network Management Center _____________________________________ icq: 11887484 voice: +30-210-772 1863 fax: +30-210-772 1866 e-mail: D.Kalogeras(a)noc.ntua.gr pub 1024D/F2A69A72 2002-12-13 Dimitrios Kalogeras <D.Kalogeras(a)noc.ntua.gr> Key fingerprint = 64C5 646D 8D33 A3FF 14D1 66C6 5127 54CC F2A6 9A72

2 1

New RPSLng draft now up
by Larry J. Blunk 28 Apr '04

28 Apr '04

Please review http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-04.txt. This clarifies the structured syntax for mp-import/mp-export attributes (and the use of the "action" keyword). Some examples were also fixed to be consistent with the syntax. -Larry

1 0

RPSLng info please
by Dimitrios Kalogeras 09 Apr '04

09 Apr '04

I would like to have your opinion on the following issues. I beleive the last draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-03.txt has some serious typos. Specifically in section 2.5 the definition of EXCEPT and REFINE do not allow for nay curly bracket after the EXCEPT or REFINE . mp-import ::= [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>] <import-expression> <import-expression> ::= [afi <afi-list>] <import-term> accept <mp-filter> | [afi <afi-list>] <import-term> accept <mp-filter> EXCEPT <import-expression> | [afi <afi-list>] <import-term> accept <mp-filter> REFINE <import-expression> <import-term> ::= <import-factor> | { <import-factor> ... <import-factor> } <import-factor> ::= from <mp-peering> [action <action>]; While in the policy examples there are curly brackets after REFINE and EXCEPT. The second issue is with regard of the logic of REFINE and EXCEPT statements. Does the RPSLng REFINE statements refines the afi protocol list ? if yes then this is not shown in the grammar. Assume for example that I would like to express a policy like import from AS-ANY accept ANY but from AS 1 if accept community (1:3);(action xxx); but from AS 1 if accept community (1:5); action yyy); how do I express this in RPSL ng? Is this a typical usage of REFINE or EXCEPT statement ? If this is a typiical usage of EXCEPT statement it would be nice to have some kind of appendinx for porting policies from rfc2622 to RPSLng. Regards, Dimitrios -- -- Dimitrios K. Kalogeras Electrical Engineer Ph.D. Network Manager NTUA/GR-Net Network Management Center _____________________________________ icq: 11887484 voice: +30-210-772 1863 fax: +30-210-772 1866 e-mail: D.Kalogeras(a)noc.ntua.gr pub 1024D/F2A69A72 2002-12-13 Dimitrios Kalogeras <D.Kalogeras(a)noc.ntua.gr> Key fingerprint = 64C5 646D 8D33 A3FF 14D1 66C6 5127 54CC F2A6 9A72

2 1

draft-blunk-rpslng-03.txt
by Larry J. Blunk 04 Mar '04

04 Mar '04

The lastest RPSLng draft (draft-blunk-rpslng-03.txt) is now up on the IETF site. I'd like to issue an internal last call to the mailing list before taking this to the IESG for last call. Thanks, Larry

1 0

Proposed changes to aut-num policy syntax in RPSLng
by Larry J. Blunk 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

Andrei Robachevsky has proposed the following changes to the syntax for policy expressions in RPSLng based on feedback from the list and a desire to simplify the syntax for the case where v4/v6 and/or unicast/multicast policy are converged. 1) the absence of safi in an expression means that both unicast and multicast are defined. I.e., afi ipv4 == afi ipv4.unicast,ipv4.multicast 2) The afi specification will be optional in the mp-* attributes in the aut-num class. If no afi is specified, the policy shall be expanded to include all afi and safi types, namely -- afi ipv4.unicast,ipv4.multicast,ipv6.unicast,ipv6.multicast 3) introduce a pseudo afi with the value of "any". I.e., afi any.unicast == afi ipv4.unicast,ipv6.unicast afi any == afi ipv4.unicast,ipv6.unicast,ipv4.multicast,ipv6.multicast Looking forward to your feedback. Regards, Larry

3 3

RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)
by Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

OK, I now found that the doc did have an IETF Last Call in late August/Early Sept. So I assume that the current version has addressed all those Last Call comments. I will put it on my plate (and have recorded this in ID-tracker). Pls ping me if you do not hear about my AD review by say Jan 5th Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry J. Blunk [mailto:ljb@merit.edu] > Sent: maandag 22 december 2003 23:10 > To: Pekka Savola > Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); curtis(a)fictitious.org; rpslng(a)ripe.net; > rps(a)ietf.org > Subject: RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) > > > On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 16:29, Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > > Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not. > > > If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and > > > since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it. > > > > > > If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need > > > to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF > > > Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go > through an AD > > > (and I am willing to consider). > > > > > > Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed? > > > > Well, when the last call was made, RPSLng document was deemed for > > Proposed Standard. And I agree with this. > > > > The confusion may have come from the fact that Curtis > mentioned that > > maybe the other parts of RPSL might be progressed on the standards > > track, to DS. Then re-forming a WG would be a good idea. > > > > But I think the issue above is premature. We need to ship > this, today > > if not yesterday :-). It's really needed. Individual submission > > seems fine by me -- everyone interested is reading these lists > > anyway, it won't get any better by cranking up the formal > > structures again :-). > > Okay, this sounds good. > > Bert, the RPSLng work is documented in the list archives hosted > by the RIPE NCC at > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/rpslng/index.html > We've had a number of formal/informal get-togethers at RIPE and IETF > meetings. If you don't want to get involved, I will make an > individual submission. > > Regards, > Larry > >

11 15

RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)
by Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 22 Dec '03

22 Dec '03

> On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 12:01, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message <1070985052.3794.5.camel(a)ablate.merit.edu>, > "Larry J. Blunk" writes: > > > The latest draft is now up on the IETF repository -- > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-02.txt > > > > > > I've also put an HTML copy at > > > http://www.radb.net/rpslng.html > > > > > > Does anyone have any objections to going to last call again? > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > No objections here. There were no comments since you sent out this > > revision (so far at least). > > > > For this to go standards track, it would be best if this were a WG > > document which would mean we should reopen the WG. If so, then I > > suggest that the WG move this document toward PS. If we're going to > > reopen then we should decide whether to move RPSL RFC-2622 to DS, > > recycle as PS with changes, or merge with RPSLng and recycle as PS. > > The latter (combine RPSL and RPSLng) would be more work (a > *lot* more > > work) but it has been suggested and might improve clarity. > If the WG > > just wants to make RPSLng a WG doc and then advance it as PS, the WG > > might be able to do so with very strong concensus on the > list but more > > likely would have to reopen and meet at least once, then > close again. > > If the TCPLW WG can be considered as a valid precendence then this > > shouldn't be too much trouble, but IESG requirements for WG > procedures > > have changed (and are continuing to change). > > > > Curtis > > Curtis, > I'm not sure if there is big need to push this standards track or > to merge the RPSL and RPSLng documents. At this point, we (the > RPSLng group) have been working on this document for 2 years now and I > think the consensus is to go forward without re-opening the WG. > > Since there have been no further comments I'd like to go to > last call on draft-blunk-rpslng-02. As Randy is no longer an > A-D, I assume it is up to Bert Wijnen to put this before the IESG? > Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not. If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it. If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go through an AD (and I am willing to consider). Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed? Bert > Regards, > Larry Blunk > > >

3 2