This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gennady Abramov
abramov at demos.net
Wed Sep 20 16:18:00 CEST 2006
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:54:09PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > And, don't forget that you even can do multihoming without PI address > > space, by multihoming of PA assigment (if LIR permitted it). > > It's nothing to do with your LIR. You can only do this if your > secondary upstream agrees to it. Your LIR can shout and jump up and > down and tell you not to do this, but they can't stop their competitor > from leaking a prefix which they really shouldn't. Mm... In most cases, LIR protects (Or at least, should protect, I think) PA assigments by his own mntner. Secondary upstream can't create route object on this specific PA assigment from first LIR without agreement, and this prefix wouldn't be routed in Internet normally. > > Fortunately, most ISPs won't do this sort of thing. > > Nick -- Regards, Gennady Abramov, CCNP, AGV77-RIPE Demos-Internet NOC Phone: +7 (495) 737-0436 http://www.demos.ru/address
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]