Hi, On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Fearghas McKay wrote:
At 13:51 +0200 10/7/03, Gert Doering wrote:
Still I think that the form is worded in a way that doesn't reflect the intent of the policy. Maybe something like "three members that participate in the global BGP routing with their own globally visible AS" or whatever like that. Peering makes sense even without a full BGP table.
However the agreed policy definition did not refer to BGP, globally visible AS and those issues were never raised during the discussions.
As such the form should be tweaked to reflect policy rather than the other way round.
That's about what I wanted to say :-) - the usual counter argument is "but how do we know that those entities are ISPs" - and I think tacking that to "have a global unique AS number" would be a reasonable compromise. (If *all* participants at an IXP insist on peering with private ASns, then I'd consider that a very specific corner case that I'm not going to worry about) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55442 (55636) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299