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>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/F4Xta4ygCZxzOnaA5uVZV9uHzV4>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] question on draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-04
Precedence: list

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=3F=
 So any type of transition is free of charge=3F
 > Speaking about ASPA, we are speaking about peering relations, withou=
t 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.=

 >=20
 > Yunan: well, I=E2=80=99m trying to understand what it means by =E2=80=
=9Csibling=E2=80=9D. Your draft defines how ASPA records are created fo=
r =E2=80=9Csibling=E2=80=9D relations, but no precise definition is giv=
en (only examples). I understand It is a complex relation, as stated in=
 the draft, but still, I=E2=80=99m confused of the actual peering relat=
ions when we talk about =E2=80=9Csibling=E2=80=9D. Can you maybe provid=
e a more specific text definition=3F
 >=20

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=20=

use of the term 'siblings' with 'mutual transit'=3F

Thanks.

=09=09=09=09=09=09Jay B.