Subject: Re: ranger operator clashes

From: Gerald Andrew Winters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:40:09 -0400 (EDT)

> > prefix^n-m^- = prefix^(n-1)-32
> 
> I think you mean n+1? i.e.
>  prefix^n-m^- = prefix^(n+1)-32

Yes, I meant (n+1), thank you.

> > "The algorithm for combining route prefixes encountered
> > during recursive route set expansions is to take the union
> > of all prefixes encountered.  So route set maintainers need
> > to be aware that a given route set will be expanded a second
> > time if the range operators are distinct and that the rules
> > for intersecting range operators do not apply."
> 
> Yes, I agree. Though you may want to rephares the "rules
> for intersecting range operators do not apply". It is kind of
> confusing. 

Actually that language can be left out.  The important
point is to agree that our "intersection
of range operator discussion" is orthogonal to the union
of prefixes encountered in a recursive route set expansion.
So the text is probably better expressed as:

"The algorithm for combining route prefixes encountered
during recursive route set expansions is to take the union
of all prefixes encountered.  So route set maintainers need
to be aware that a given route set will be expanded a second
time if the range operators are distinct and the union of those
prefixes will be included in the final result."

So assuming we are in agreement, I think the next step
is to pause for a while to give time for any other possible
feedback (unlikely).
  But assuming there are no further comments, would it
be helpful for me to summarize our discussion into a small
section?  I guess the answer depends somewhat if you feel
this discussion belongs in text or is a matter for the mailing
list only.                           

--jerry

---

From: Cengiz Alaettinoglu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:47:55 -0700 (PDT)

> this discussion belongs in text or is a matter for the mailing

Since this is a small item and wg already have concensus to fix it (in
the meeting), once we get all the comments on the fix itself, I can go
ahead and change the RPSL document to reflect the new semantics. This
probably means a new paragraph in the document.

Cengiz