Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy

9 Jul 2002

      On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 06:11:04PM +0200, 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.
Ok, so the word 'multihomed' can be replaced or described as "in the case of
two or more eBGP sessions with public ASes", right?
...
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 other words, if customer B would like to resell service from uplink A
to two other customers (C and D) it should be allowed to get AS number for 
that:

		+------+
                | AS-A |
                +---o--+
                    |
                +---o--+
                | AS-B |
                +-o--o-+
                  |  |
            +-----+  +-----+
            |              |
        +---o--+        +--o---+
        | AS-C |        | AS-D |
        +------+        +------+

right (lets omit details how AS-C and AS-D achieve they multihoming)?

-- 
Regards,
Vladimir.

Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy

Vladimir A. Jakovenko