[3737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Customer AS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Karrenberg)
Mon Aug 19 03:37:09 1996
To: curtis@ans.net
Cc: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 17 Aug 1996 07:44:24 EDT.
<199608171144.HAA03629@brookfield.ans.net>
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:22:23 +0200
> Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net> writes:
>
> In message <199608170146.SAA20928@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
>
> > In fact, the <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt> draft indicates
> > that this is one of the few acceptable instances when allocation can be
> > done by one of the various registries and not by (one of) the upstream
> > service provider(s). ...
>
> draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt is wrong on this one.
Just for the record: I is one of the few acceptable instances and certainly
does not represent common practise, to the contrary! All regional IRs
recommend using address space from one of the providers.
> If the route comes from one of the providers CIDR blocks, the other
> more specific route can be ignored farther away in the topology. If
> it is a provider independent address it can't be dropped without
> losing connectivity to it.
Correct.
Daniel
