Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

[Max Tulyev president@localhost]

Nick Hilliard wrote:
> - while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear
> during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for
> multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet (however we care to
> define that term).  Private interconnection to third parties is also a
> fully legitimate justification for assignment of provider independent
> number resources.

I also saw a lot of cases when PI announced via upstream's ASN, not via
user's one. I think, it is OK and it is not against multihoming, as this
ASN is multihomed of course.

-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@localhost)