Guidelines for Extending RPSL
draft-ietf-rps-extending-00
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(rps WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Cengiz Alaettinoglu , David Kessens | ||
Last updated | 1997-11-21 | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This Internet Draft describes guidelines for extending the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [3, 4]. Our experiences with PRDB [2], RIPE-81 [6], and RIPE-181 [5] taught us that RPSL had to be extensible. These languages were not extensible and each transition to a new language turned out to be quite painful. As a result, extensibility was a primary design goal for RPSL. New routing protocols or new features to existing routing protocols can be easily handled using RPSL's dictionary class. New classes or new attributes to the existing classes can also be added.
Authors
Cengiz Alaettinoglu
David Kessens
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)