FW: more specific routes in today reality
Vladimir A. Jakovenko vovik at lucky.net
Wed Nov 7 14:34:09 CET 2001
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 01:55:01PM +0100, Koepp, Karsten wrote: >Nurani, > >I was missing a RIPE NCC hostmaster statement to this e-mail. >Sascha quoted a hostmaster. [..skipped..] ><SNIP> >> >> "- If PI is requested for multi-homing please explain why >> the second >> provider cannot route PA space as a more specific >> route (with the >> PA block holder adding a more specific route too)." >> >> This was suggested from a RIPE NCC Hostmaster when sending a >> PI-space req. This looks a little contrary to your opinion doesn't >> it? >> >> Sascha >> > >Has this been a mistake, or is this the default answer to PI requests >sent to the NCC nowadays? Is the NCC seriously going to recommend this >to the members? >I don't recommend the use of PI to customers either, and I don't want >to roll up the multi-homing discussion. But PI should remain provider- >independent and PA should remain provider-aggregatable. 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 -- Regards, Vladimir.
[ lir-wg Archives ]