nanog mailing list archives
Re: IRR for IX peers
From: Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:54:26 +0200
On 10/7/21 16:33, Nick Hilliard wrote:
there was more to it than that. The grammar was too complicated to easily describe common policies and too limited to describe complex policies. The structure was difficult to extend when the routing became more complicated (e.g. mpls, route servers, ipv6, complex ibgp, etc). The tooling was too complicated for anyone to understand properly how it worked and too early to benefit from later additions, e.g. scripting language plugins. If it had been an easy problem domain to fix, it would have been fixed a long time ago, but it wasn't.
All the reasons I tried and gave up, back in 2003. Mark.
Current thread:
- IRR for IX peers Randy Bush (Oct 04)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Nick Hilliard (Oct 04)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Randy Bush (Oct 04)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Nick Hilliard (Oct 07)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Randy Bush (Oct 07)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Nick Hilliard (Oct 07)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Mark Tinka (Oct 07)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Randy Bush (Oct 04)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Nick Hilliard (Oct 04)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Łukasz Bromirski (Oct 05)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Mark Tinka (Oct 05)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Randy Bush (Oct 04)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Ben Maddison via NANOG (Oct 04)
- Re: IRR for IX peers Randy Bush (Oct 04)