Brian Dickson writes:
> Hi, Jay,
>
> Out of curiosity, have you had a chance to read (or skim over) the drafts?
Um, yes. That's where I found your text:
---------------------------------------------
Neighbor is:
a. Transit Provider - T
b. (Transit) Customer - C
c. Peer - P
d. Mutual Transit
In any neighbor relationship, the roles of the parties on either
end of the link would be:
T-C
C-T
P-P
Mc-Mtp
Mtp-Mc
(where the last two, Mc/Mtp are a semantic and/or coloring
distinction on routes, rather than two separate links.)
---------------------------------------------
"P-T" and "T-P" were not listed among the choices.
If bi-lateral agreement is not a requirement, then I would suggest
modifying the text to not imply that it is.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
