[58974] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Ettiquette and rules regarding Hijacked ASN's or IP space?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Dills)
Mon Jun 9 13:05:56 2003
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:04:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net>
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <chris@UU.NET>
Cc: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>, <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.53.0306091558100.23433@rampart.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> excellent point :) the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' was just
> non-abuser/abuser. Certianly ARIN's requirements for ASN ownership are
> simple enough, be multihomed and have a 'unique' routing policy. If you
> need an ASN likely you are already multihomed and have a 'unique' routing
> policy, eh?
It's not even THAT difficult...all you have to be is multihomed _or_ have
a 'unique' routing policy.
Being multihomed by itself is trivial and plenty of justification...does
anybody have some examples of 'unique' routing policies, that require
ASNs, that don't require or imply multihoming? For example, while
anycasting is a good example of a potential use of an ASN without
requiring multihoming, it's kind of implied that they're at least
purchasing transit from multiple organizations (if not truly multihomed)
and could easily justify an ASN without having to specify their unique
routing policy.
What sorts of 'unique' routing policies justify an ASN?
Andy
---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---
