Re: Operational feedback on policy redundancy

[Andrew Kirch via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

It strikes me that what you are describing is a management/governance
problem, not a technical problem.

If your employer's governance program produces conflicting, impossible to
implement, or nonsensical KPIs, you can't fix that with technology.

I suggest referring to Simon Travaglia's excellent series of writings on
network operations for the correct solution to this governance problem.

To wit: the elevator doesn't have to be there when the doors open and the
governance team is looking at their phones instead of paying attention...

Andrew

On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 2:28 PM manwar--- via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
wrote:

> 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/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/6N2JZFEJGCB5PBKU3WHO4L4HZGEFK34M/