RE: additional requirement: cooperation

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

>> A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site
>> and its transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation
>> directly between the transit providers.

More on this:
The term "directly connected" I used before is obviously a poor choice
of words, especially for the 6bone.

The word "neighbor" is not appropriate either, because it has some
strong BGP connotations: an "ebgp-multihop" BGP neighbor could be
completely unrelated to one's router.

I welcome other phrasing and someone to check my bad English, this is
what I coined:

"direct neighbor" : As related to two transit providers, direct
neighbors are BGP peers that can communicate without crossing any AS
that is not owned by either transit provider.

The cooperation additional requirement could then be:

"A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site
and its transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation
directly between the transit providers except for direct neighbors".