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

Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org> Mon, 11 May 2020 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jayb@oz.mt.att.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614B13A0B02 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5RJ2xOt9sCot for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (braeburn.org [12.0.1.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6693A0A98 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 07:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oz.mt.att.com (zoe.cbbtier3.att.net [12.0.1.45]) by hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771B238FA2 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:13:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by oz.mt.att.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 691D35641353; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:13:17 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: emacs 25.2.2 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I); VM 8.2.0b under 25.2.2 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <24249.23930.126312.2484@oz.mt.att.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 10:13:14 -0400
From: Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
To: "Guyunan (Yunan Gu, IP Technology Research Dept. NW)" <guyunan@huawei.com>
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <C01B0098369B2D4391851938DA6700B717A28020@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <C01B0098369B2D4391851938DA6700B7179F9EAB@dggeml512-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAEGSd=APMCnnd5mrnMKtti-QWy1m7r5JfJsf7HynZqyXWwsZHg@mail.gmail.com> <C01B0098369B2D4391851938DA6700B717A0C386@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAEGSd=Bk3Lgte1L0KKP_GU+ieDpETvLk1JTVTLZTv-Z5NrVUoQ@mail.gmail.com> <C01B0098369B2D4391851938DA6700B717A28020@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Reply-To: Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org>
X-GPG-Fingerprint: DDDB 542E D988 94D0 82D3 D198 7DED 6648 2308 D3C0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/F4Xta4ygCZxzOnaA5uVZV9uHzV4>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] question on draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-04
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 14:13:22 -0000

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.