Re: Exchange Points and LIRs

[Fearghas McKay <]

At 14:03 +0200 10/7/03, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>> 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.
>
>That's about what I wanted to say :-) - the usual counter argument is
>"but how do we know that those entities are ISPs" - and I think tacking that
>to "have a global unique AS number" would be a reasonable compromise.

except we already had that argument when we put the policy together
initially. This is merely correcting an implementation error by an RIR, as
such unless we really want to go through the whole policy debate again the
form should be corrected.

If we reopen the policy I am sure there will be more cans of worms opened:-(

>(If *all* participants at an IXP insist on peering with private ASns,
>then I'd consider that a very specific corner case that I'm not going
>to worry about)

The open membership policy should help cover that - as the space is liable
to filtering that was felt to be enough to discourage spurious applications.

<wg-chair hat>So Leo - can we have a change in the application form please
so it more closely represents the policy?</hat>

Thanks

	f