Re: Exchange Points and LIRs

[Fearghas McKay <]

At 13:51 +0200 10/7/03, Gert Doering wrote:
>Still I think that the form is worded in a way that doesn't reflect the
>intent of the policy.  Maybe something like "three members that participate
>in the global BGP routing with their own globally visible AS" or whatever
>like that.  Peering makes sense even without a full BGP table.

However the agreed policy definition did not refer to BGP, globally visible
AS and those issues were never raised during the discussions.

As such the form should be tweaked to reflect policy rather than the other
way round.

	f