The essence IMO: If A sends a packet to B, then A must trust A's provider and B's provider and by extension, their providers and so on.
A does not trust other customers of those providers and does not want his packet transiting any of them. Now, design the routing to make that happen. -- Jakob Heitz. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 2:47 PM To: Brian Dickson Cc: sidr wg list Subject: Re: [sidr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-reqts-02.txt Brian, On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 07:32:25PM -0500, Brian Dickson wrote: > Greetings, SIDR folks, > > Here is the notice on the ID for the route leak "requirements" document. I am likely misunderstanding something in this document, but my interpretation of it is that routes are always colored based on link role. Consider some prefix, P, sent from AS 1 to AS 2 on two different links. Link 1 is primarily used for peering traffic. Link 2 is used for transit traffic. If I'm understanding the draft properly, routes received on Link 1 should not be propagated to AS 3 even though it's the same prefix (and path attribute set) as P received on Link 2. Is that correct? -- Jeff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
