Re: IRR for IX peers

[Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>]

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.