Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-bgp-open-policy (5/20 to 6/3/2017).

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Job,

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:59:47AM +0000, Job Snijders wrote:
> Unfortunately, as it's currently specified, I still cannot see my
> affiliation deploying this technology in a meaningful way.
> 
> The word "peer" is extremely overloaded: it is a homonym which conflates
> all kinds of concepts. The term appears in too many training courses to be
> redefined to one specific meaning. On top of that, I all too often see that
> provisioning- or customer engineers don't have clear insight as to who is
> customer and who the supplier is. Even worse: a customer may assume the
> supplier role as part of a larger deal. While in the hallways we easily
> talk about simplified models on how the internet works, actually enforcing
> that simplification in the context of EBGP to me is undesirable.

I have some opinions here that probably overlap your own.  While I haven't
paid good attention to operator forums like NANOG for a while, I remember
that definitions of 'peer' tended to make for a heated topic.  I also don't
remember any particular convergence on a formal definition that would hold
up in a BGP AS-graph sort of way.

It might be helpful if you or other operators rally for what the current
definition of that term is perceived to be. 

(And yes, I realize that simply asking the question may be tantamount to
starting a flame war...)

[...]

> 
> Perhaps if the draft would focus on merely two classifications: "stub" and
> "transit" networks, where the former would be an affirmation that neither
> party expects the "stub" network to transit prefixes for any other ASN, and
> transit networks would enjoy the same behavior as any ASN today, that would
> give a different twist to this idea. Downside is that one needs to bounce
> the session to become a transit provider.

The real issue here is the simple matter of AS-graph definition.  A stub
network is always clear.  Traditional papers for valley free routing tend to
focus on the remaining up/down/lateral relationships.  I believe these are
the properties we're looking for, and that stub/transit is probably not a
sufficient relationship.

-- Jeff