[lir-wg] AS Number Policy

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 10:03:38AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>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.

Or in other words RIPE should modify existing policy in such way, that you
may request an AS-number for IX only if you will put RIS box in this IX, right?

Moreover, all existing IX-es not covered by RIS should also use RIS boxes, 
right? :-)

-- 
Regards,
Vladimir.