Re: [Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@laptoy770.fictitious.org>]

In message <3F66EE8E.1060104@mrp.net>, Mark Prior writes:
> Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> 
> > Transition issues are very important in a RR.  You have to assume that
> > old software will be around for quite a long time.  Someone is bound
> > to be using old code for a very long time.
> > 
> 
> I'm not disputing that. What I am suggesting is that if there was a 
> version number (say) negotiation mechanism then new code could negotiate 
> for support of new features with a server but without this a new server 
> would return old style data (which will avoid the old code barfing).
> 
> Mark.


Since there is no version negotiation, we'd need a new set of queries
with version negotiation.  The old set could be assumed to be the old
versions.

The next issue is you'd need a reliable means to translate the new
format into the old.  This does constrain the syntax somewhat, but
would allow ipv4,ipv6 policy to be specified and just the ipv4 part
returned to the old query.

This boild down to just a "small matter of code".  RtConfig is open
source.  Would you like to contribute the changes?  :-)

Curtis