> These ideas have floated around for 20+ years. They have even appeared in > early BGP specs ... See "LINK TYPE" in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1105.txt. > > I actually think this is a useful idea, but the discussion always rat > holes in the supposition of absolute filtering rules and proof by counter > examples. > > I think it would be simple for transmitters to indicate and sign their > view of the peering relationship they are sending an update over. > Customer, provider, peer, or unspecified. > > (where/how you encode this is a detail, I would suggest in the PATH SIG > unless we decide to take on the more general approach below). > > What receivers do with that information ... Just like validation state, > would be a matter of local policy. > > Worse case is everyone chooses unspecified and we waste two bits under the > signature. > > Best case for those who don't care about declaring who their > customers/providers are to their customers/providers .... Then receivers > can choose to filter "V" routes if they wish.
[ thanks for the only actual constructive hint i have seen on this list for a while. being still on travel and very time constrained, i have started just hitting delete to the repeat blather from the failed rpsec wg. ] do you expect it to be covered by the signature? if so, then the business relationship is published globally. do you see a way to assure veracity and non-repudiation while not exposing globally? randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
