Re: [sidr] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-14: (with COMMENT)

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

spencer,

[ btw, your mua seems not to do quoting level in its ascii rendering ]

> you are at the intersection (well actially union) of two twisty sets of
> passages, bgp routing and internet ops.
> 
> > I'm wondering if "the transitive closure of a client's customers" has
> > a precise meaning. I know what a customer is, at the hand-waving
> > level
> 
> the academic, overly-idealized, definitions of customer/provider/peer
> are in https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/sigmetrics00.long.pdf,
> aka gao-rexford; though this has been shown to apply to the real
> internet far less strictly than many researchers have stubbornly
> assumed; see http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/imc/2015/papers/p71.pdf
> 
> at the network ops level, a 'customer' is an ebgp-speaking AS to which
> you give routes learned from
>   o other custimers
>   o your peers
>   o your upstreams/transits
>   o your internals
> of course, by business arrangement, this might be restricted.
> 
> this may be contrasted with peers and upstreams/transits, to whom you
> give only customer and internal routes.
> 
> > Is "customer" being used a shorthand for another term that isn't
> > depending on an economic transaction?
> 
> exactly
> 
> > (If this was "the transitive closure of a client's clients", for
> > instance, I would know what that meant
> 
> a route reflector's "clients" are ibgp speakers (stress is on the 'i')
> within the RR's AS.  a (possibly improper) subset of those clients may
> be "customer aggregation" routers, i.e. connect via ebgp to ASs of
> external entities (aka customers).  iff one or more of those RR clients
> (or their clients, cf 'transitive closure') speak bgpsec to a customer
> is the RR required to do bgpsec.  if all the customers (which could be
> the null set) of of the RR's clients speak only bgp classic, there is no
> requirement that the RR speak bgpsec.
> 
> 
> I'm wondering if there's another term that's not wrong, and not more
> confusing. If you say there's not, I believe you!

as we said in my long gone compiler days, 'customer cone' is a reserved
word.

> Thanks for catching me up.

no extra charge

randy