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.