Re: Operational feedback on policy redundancy

[manwar--- via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Hi all,

Thanks for the feedback, and apologies if this isn’t the right forum for this kind of question.

To clarify: the data comes from an intent-based enterprise network, where the intents are high-level requirements 
collected from a running production system.

By redundancy, I mean cases like:
- A general requirement (e.g., “latency < 20ms for all services”) alongside a weaker, service-specific one (e.g., “VoIP 
latency < 25ms”), where the latter is effectively subsumed.

By conflicts, I mean situations like:
- One intent requiring all traffic to traverse a firewall, while another requires no middleboxes for 
performance-sensitive services.

In this dataset, such cases often appeared without explicit documentation of how they were resolved. My assumption is 
that, in practice, these get handled via implicit prioritization or later clarification.

So my main question is: At the high-level goal / intent layer (before translation into ACLs, BGP policy, etc.):
- Do redundant or overlapping requirements tend to exist in practice?
- Is it common for conflicts to be resolved through undocumented clarifications or implicit prioritization?

I do intend to publish the results of this work once the project is complete, with the goal of making it useful for 
operators as well.

Appreciate any insights.

Best regards,
Mubashir
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/4JDEGK25VXD74NSLJXJVVFDCEZFXLSK6/