Re: [Sidrops] question on draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-04

[Jay Borkenhagen <[e-mail]>]

Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW) writes:

 > > And a final question about Section 7 Siblings (Complex Relations), regardless of the current description of what sibling relation is, do we think that sibling ASes are ASes that belong to the same operator? So any type of transition is free of charge?
 > Speaking about ASPA, we are speaking about peering relations, without any guess about the business between parties.
 > And from what I know - siblings are also spread among small networks, so this term is not strictly bound to the same administrative domain.
 > 
 > Yunan: well, I’m trying to understand what it means by “sibling”. Your draft defines how ASPA records are created for “sibling” relations, but no precise definition is given (only examples). I understand It is a complex relation, as stated in the draft, but still, I’m confused of the actual peering relations when we talk about “sibling”. Can you maybe provide a more specific text definition?
 > 

Hi Yunan,

I also find the term 'siblings' to be confusing and potentially
misleading in the ASPA context, since it implies common parentage.  I
believe that there is one and only one such 'complex relation' to be
called out in ASPA verification, and that would be accurately
described as 'mutual transit': ASes mutually agreeing to send prefixes
received from each other to their peers and upstreams.

Would your request for clarification be met by the draft replacing its 
use of the term 'siblings' with 'mutual transit'?

Thanks.

						Jay B.