Ok. You are saying that's illegal. A RS rule is that clients cannot be customers or providers of other clients. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with ASPA. Write it into another draft.
Regards, Jakob. -----Original Message----- From: Sidrops <sidrops-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 12:45 PM To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jhe...@cisco.com>; Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshun...@huawei.com>; Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> Cc: sidr...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org; Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] ASPA and Route Server (was RE: IXP Route Server question) >If AS1 attests that AS3 is its provider, then there is no leak. >That would be weird, but is it illegal? No that wouldn't work. If you propose that then for an Update that is propagating in the opposite direction, you would also want the reverse: 'AS3 attests that AS1 is its provider'. That would make AS1 and AS3 siblings. Then the leak in question will not be detected (the ASPA verification outcome will be Valid)! We considered and dismissed it before: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/bfchBrjqMqvMRoP7WrPR-OKOXT8/ Sriram _______________________________________________ Sidrops mailing list sidr...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
