RE: FW: more specific routes in today reality

["Koepp, Karsten" <]

Hi Gert,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Doering [
	    
	    
]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:18 PM
> To: Koepp, Karsten
> Cc: 'Vladimir A. Jakovenko'; 'lir-wg@localhost
> Subject: Re: FW: more specific routes in today reality
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:48:20PM +0100, Koepp, Karsten wrote:
> > All I am saying is, regardless of whether we want this type 
> of multi-homing 
> > or not, networks originating from different AS should use 
> PI space. It does 
> > neither save a route nor address space to make pieces of a PA block 
> > multi-homed. It only binds the network to the provider 
> assigning the PAs.
> > That's why I was up-set.
> 
> Whether or not an announcement is PI or PA has no influence 
> on the number
> of routes visible in the global table.
What I said before.
 
> Using a sub-block from PA space has two advantages:
> 
>  - more flexible in block size (what if the customer comes back later
>    and needs twice the space?)
Means the customer has to renumber to a bigger network. Can be done.

>  - more robust concerning filtering / dampening (the ISPs PA 
> space will
>    most likely be still visible, even if the sub-network is filtered
>    somewhere)
I admit this is an advantage.

>  - if the customer goes away, the network can be given back and the
>    route will disappear -> good for conservation *and* aggregation.
I don't follow that this will decrease routes.

> The only benefit of PI is "you can keep your network if you 
> change ISPs",
> which is convenient for the end customer but very expensive 
> on the global 
> routing system.  
> 
> This is why people actually ask for "stop handing out PI at 
> all" (which
> I am *not* advocating here, but think about it).
> 
> - and due to this pros and cons, which most people agree 
> upon, the RIPE recommendations make sense.

Gert, after all you are convincing. 
This means in turn, it would be conform to the rules to multi-home PA
addresses
and it just depends on the service providers co-operating to create the
route 
objects.

Is this really current practice? 
Where or when is this gonna be reflected in RIPE docs?

Karsten

Total number of questions concerning RIPE policies:     73128

> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> -- 
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:     73128
> 
> SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
> 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299
>