[Xorp-hackers] [Xorp-users] Policy network4 operator

[Mike Horn]

Hi Marko,

I really think that if XORP moves to using terminology, the terms should be
something similar to Juniper's "exact, orlonger, etc.".  IMHO this makes the
most sense 1) because the xorpsh is similar in style to Juniper's so it
would be consistent and 2)it seems to be the most intuitive of the ideas I
have heard so far.

Like Hasso, I'm also confused by what networks the "shorter" or current
modifiers ">, >=" would match.

-mike

-----Original Message-----
From: xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org [mailto:xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org] On
Behalf Of Marko Zec
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 4:48 AM
To: xorp-hackers at icir.org
Cc: xorp-users at xorp.org; Hasso Tepper; Pavlin Radoslavov
Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] [Xorp-hackers] Policy network4 operator

On Friday 17 November 2006 12:34, Hasso Tepper wrote:
> Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:
> > "network4 shorter 10.0.0.0/8"   SAME AS "network4 > 10.0.0.0/8"
> > "network4 orshorter 10.0.0.0/8" SAME AS "network4 >= 10.0.0.0/8"
>
> [snip]
>
> > Note that the last three keywords (shorter/orshorter/not) don't 
> > exist in Juniper, so feel free to suggest better names.
>
> What networks you'd expect to match these conditions? Ok, 10.0.0.0/8 
> would match "orshorter" but point being ... ?

Perhaps we should consider alternatives to "shorter/longer" terminology
here, maybe something like "network4 includes 10.0.0.0/8" or "network4
is_included_in 10.0.0.0/8", with the "strictly_" modifier for current "<"
and ">" operators?  Or perhaps "covers" / "covered_by" -> native English
speakers should do better at picking the right term...

Marko

_______________________________________________
Xorp-users mailing list
Xorp-users at xorp.org
http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users