[lir-wg] AS Number Policy

On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 06:11:04PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
>>Lets see the following example:
>>
>>   +-----------+        +-------+
>>   | AS-UPLINK |        | AS-IX |
>>   +---------o-+        +o------+
>>             |           |
>>            +o-----------o+
>>            | AS-CUSTOMER |
>>            +-------------+
>>
>>[ ... ]
>>
>>Should AS-CUSTOMER be considered as multihomed?
>
>  Definitely, as they'd probably have more then one eBPG session, and
>  probably a different routing policy.

Ok, so the word 'multihomed' can be replaced or described as "in the case of
two or more eBGP sessions with public ASes", right?

>  I don't see any reason to treat "customer" status (i.e. packets shipped
>  for money) different from "peering" status (i.e. packets shipped for
>  "free").

In other words, if customer B would like to resell service from uplink A
to two other customers (C and D) it should be allowed to get AS number for 
that:

		+------+
                | AS-A |
                +---o--+
                    |
                +---o--+
                | AS-B |
                +-o--o-+
                  |  |
            +-----+  +-----+
            |              |
        +---o--+        +--o---+
        | AS-C |        | AS-D |
        +------+        +------+

right (lets omit details how AS-C and AS-D achieve they multihoming)?

-- 
Regards,
Vladimir.