FW: more specific routes in today reality

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.