On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brian, > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 07:31:23PM -0500, Brian Dickson wrote: > > Here is the first of three IDs, concerning the definitions of "route > leak". > > > : 1.1. Rationale > : > : > : A route-leak occurs when a prefix is originated by one party, > : propagated by other parties, and received by the observer, where the > : path used was not intentional end-to-end. It is a leak if the > : receiver did not want the route, from a generic policy perspective. > > If the receiver didn't want the route? While that's perhaps true in many > cases, the impacted party is usually someone whose route was distributed > outside the scope where they intended it to be distributed. > > -- Jeff > Yes, you are correct. We can expand the language however folks would prefer. (But it is different from saying, "It is a leak _only_ if"... that was definitely not the intention of the description.) It should also be noted that, based on the definition(s), it would appear to be a leak, to every recipient after it became a leak. And, in most instances, it would also meet other leak-like criteria, including intended scope. The important thing is to reduce it to the smallest set of consistently present conditions -- a basis, if you will -- to make it possible to build rules into the protocol to stop leaks. Brian
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
