Re: Operational feedback on policy redundancy

I'm skeptical of the data. What do you exactly mean?

This list largely deals with stateless IP routers, and I am assuming
this context.

What are the 'operational intents' you refer to? Are they ACL rules,
BGP policies? Because in either context, I don't believe 95% to be
redundant for a moment, so I must be confused and you're talking about
something entirely different.

You're not going to receive any input, because no one knows what you're asking.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 at 22:48, manwar--- via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am a PhD student currently looking at the long-term management of network policies and intents. In studying a large-scale production dataset from a service provider, I found that over 95% of the operational intents were semantically redundant (meaning they were completely shadowed or subsumed by broader, older rules).
>
> I am trying to understand if this high level of policy bloat matches the actual experience of operators in the field:
>
> Redundancy: Is cleaning up shadowed or redundant rules a regular part of your workflow, or do they just tend to stay in the system for years once they're active?
> Conflicts: How often do you run into cases where multiple goals (which all seem fine on their own) accidentally create a conflict when they are enforced together over the same traffic?
> Resolutions: Is there a standard way you "relax" or prioritize these goals when you find they are fighting each other?
>
> Thank you for any operational insights you can share.
>
> Best regards,
> Mubashir Anwar
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3RJ45WJJ63KNKUCNT7A5BCVQXBVONJ3V/



-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XT52O5NJWPSTDXL6A7E2DLFBKJ5BR7GC/