FW: more specific routes in today reality

Vladimir,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir A. Jakovenko [mailto:vovik at lucky.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:34 PM
> To: Koepp, Karsten
> Cc: 'nurani at ripe.net'; 'lir-wg at ripe.net'
> Subject: Re: 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".
> 
RFC1930 does not know PA or PI address categories, just routes.

> 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".
RFC2725 does mention PI, but not the case where PA addresses are being
multi-homed.

All I am saying is, regardless of whether we want this type of multi-homing 
or not, networks originating from different AS should use PI space. It does 
neither save a route nor address space to make pieces of a PA block 
multi-homed. It only binds the network to the provider assigning the PAs.
That's why I was up-set.

Still waiting for the NCC to answer...

Karsten