[lir-wg] AS Number Policy

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, 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.
> 
>   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 this case, RIPE would have to have presence at every IX to not to get 
false positives.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords