[address-policy-wg] Summary of the PI Task Force's recent discussions

Yes, I know, but I don't see any technical problems in doing this, and if
the alternative is that the customer chooses another provider, then I would
think that a lot of ISPs would accept. I think this is a better way than
assigning a PI net which will only be used until the customer can justify
the /21, I know there is some administrative tasks in doing it this way, but
if the customer is willingly to pay an administrative fee I don't see the
problem.



Med venlig hilsen/Best regards

Christian Rasmussen
Hosting manager, jay.net a/s

Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark

Email: noc at jay.net
Personal email: chr at corp.jay.net
Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301

Produkter / Products:
http://hosting.jay.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sabri Berisha [mailto:sabri at cluecentral.net]
> Sent: 11. august 2003 13:55
> To: Christian Rasmussen
> Cc: Gert Doering; Joao Damas; Address Policy WG
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Summary of the PI Task Force's recent
> discussions
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:43:15PM +0200, Christian Rasmussen wrote:
>
> > Marcus Ruchti says that the majority of the ISPs will not
> announce PA space
> > from another AS, does this include more specific announcements? If the
> > community does not allow this, whats the point of this:
>
> You will need both parties. The first ISP to add a route-object, and the
> second to be willing to announce.
>
> --
> Sabri Berisha 			"I route, therefore you are"
>
> user-specific rbl checking? http://sourceforge.net/projects/rblcheckd
>
>