[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gennady Abramov
abramov at demos.net
Wed Sep 20 16:18:00 CEST 2006
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:54:09PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > And, don't forget that you even can do multihoming without PI address > > space, by multihoming of PA assigment (if LIR permitted it). > > It's nothing to do with your LIR. You can only do this if your > secondary upstream agrees to it. Your LIR can shout and jump up and > down and tell you not to do this, but they can't stop their competitor > from leaking a prefix which they really shouldn't. Mm... In most cases, LIR protects (Or at least, should protect, I think) PA assigments by his own mntner. Secondary upstream can't create route object on this specific PA assigment from first LIR without agreement, and this prefix wouldn't be routed in Internet normally. > > Fortunately, most ISPs won't do this sort of thing. > > Nick -- Regards, Gennady Abramov, CCNP, AGV77-RIPE Demos-Internet NOC Phone: +7 (495) 737-0436 http://www.demos.ru/address
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]