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

[Dave Roberts]

Being a product manager at heart, my advice would be to follow industry 
conventions here. The fact is, the industry has already solved this 
problem and there are certain expectations of operating behavior and 
terminology that router users already have. So why reinvent the wheel? 
Violating the norms of the vast majority of users just seems senseless.

My conclusion is that Robert's suggestion of adopting Juniper 
terminology and behavior seems like a no-brainer. Failing that, look at 
what Cisco does and base something off that. But whatever you do, don't 
go inventing new terminology and behavior without a *STRONG* reason for 
doing so; all you will do is end up confusing the vast majority of users 
that are schooled on existing products. Complex router configurations 
are difficult enough to get debugged and working without users having to 
remember that XORP is the one router on the planet that does something 
needlessly different.

-- Dave

Kristian Larsson wrote:
> I think Roberts idea is just great, why not copy
> Juniper terminology. We already got a Juniper
> lookalike shell.
> 
> And just as robert.. I'd go with option B if I had
> to choose between the two.
> 
>   -K
> 
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 05:13:04PM -0800, Robert Bays wrote:
>> Maybe it makes more sense to use Juniper terminology; exact, longer,
>> orlonger, through, upto...
>>
>> Short of that, I prefer option B.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Robert.
>>
>> Mike Horn wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Pavlin and I have been discussing what the "right" direction should be
>>> for the network4 operator in policy statements.  Right now if you
>>> specify "network4 <= 10.0.0.0/8" this would match all the 10.0.0.0/8 and
>>> longer prefixes (i.e. 10.0.0.0/9, 10.1.0.0/16, etc.).
>>>
>>> My recommendation is to change the operator from "<=" matches longer
>>> prefixes to ">=" matches longer prefixes, since this seems more
>>> intuitive to me (/9 is > /8) and this would make it match the
>>> "prefix-length4" operator where "prefix-length4 > 24" matches all
>>> prefixes longer than /24.
>>>
>>> Which do you prefer:
>>>
>>> A) keep it the way it is now, < matches longer prefixes
>>> B) changing it to use > for longer prefix matches
>>>
>>> Btw, the bug on this is 358
>>>
>>> _http://www.xorp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=358_
>>>
>>> -mike
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xorp-hackers mailing list
>>> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
>>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xorp-users mailing list
>> Xorp-users at xorp.org
>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users
>