On 3/22/12 11:27 AM, "Jay Borkenhagen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I am aware of a number of ebgp relationships where the two parties >disagree on the nature of their connections: > >- the first party believes the second is a transit customer > >- the second party believe the first is a peer > >Today the two parties agree to disagree, and yet the proper routing >works. > > >I am also aware of a number of intricate routing policies, along the >lines of in-country transit, per-continent peer, world-wide customer. > > >I'm afraid these kinds of things could make it tricky or even >impossible to categorize links in black-and-white terms as is done in >these leaks drafts. I would suggest categorizing directed links as they appear in AS_PATH. It is not clear to me that A->B has to be labeled the same way as B-->A. Given that we are discussing control of further distribution, I think the sender of an UPDATE would label the link with its view of the relationship. Dougm _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
