Hi Jakob,
>> AS1 (RS Client) -----> AS2 (RS) -----> AS3 (RS Client) ---p2p (lateral
>> peer) ---> AS4 (validating AS)
...
>The AS-path at AS4 is (4 3 1).
>If you assume that AS1 and AS3 are bilateral peers, then both sides of AS3
>declare AS3 not to be its provider. AS3 >has both sides non-customer. That's a
>leak.
Right. It seems we agree. A set of APSAs needs to be in place. They can be
enumerated as follows:
{AS1, AS2} – AS1 attests AS2 (RS) as a provider
{AS3, AS2} – AS3 attests AS2 (RS) as a provider
{AS2, AS 0} – RS (AS2) creates an ASPA with AS 0 (this is already specified in
the draft)
The first two ASPAs *implicitly* declare that AS3 is not a provider of AS1 and
vice versa. That implies that they are p2p. AS4 does not need to look at its
own ASPA. It knows it is p2p with AS3.
Specifying that each RS-client creates ASPA showing the RS as a provider is a
solution component that we (Nick, me, Shunwan, ...) seem to be converging to.
Just to be sure the focus is on transparent RS.
Sriram
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
