About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: more specific routes in today reality

  • To:
  • From: Havard Eidnes < >
  • Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 15:51:30 +0100 (CET)
  • Cc:

> Quote from RFC1930, "Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration
> 		     of an Autonomous System (AS)", page 7:
>
> "With the introduction of aggregation it should be noted that a prefix may 
> be represented as residing in more than one AS, however, this is very much 
> the exception rather than the rule".
>
> Quote from RFC2725, "Routing Policy System Security", page 9:
>
> "Route objects may exist for the same prefix with multiple origin AS values 
> due to common multihoming practice that does not require a unique origin AS".
>
> RFC1930, Category: Best Current Practice, March 1996
> RFC2725, Category: Standards Track, Dec 1999

Just a point of clarification: that some text in a standards track RFC
mentions a practice and permits that practice to be described, does
not mean that the practice itself is standardized or recommended.

But we all knew that already, right?

Regards,

- Håvard




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>
 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community