Nurani, I was missing a RIPE NCC hostmaster statement to this e-mail. Sascha quoted a hostmaster.
-----Original Message----- From: Sascha E. Pollok [mailto:sp@iphh.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:33 PM To: Gert Doering; Vladimir A. Jakovenko Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net; routing-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: more specific routes in today reality
<SNIP>
"- If PI is requested for multi-homing please explain why the second provider cannot route PA space as a more specific route (with the PA block holder adding a more specific route too)."
This was suggested from a RIPE NCC Hostmaster when sending a PI-space req. This looks a little contrary to your opinion doesn't it?
Sascha
Has this been a mistake, or is this the default answer to PI requests sent to the NCC nowadays? Is the NCC seriously going to recommend this to the members? I don't recommend the use of PI to customers either, and I don't want to roll up the multi-homing discussion. But PI should remain provider- independent and PA should remain provider-aggregatable. Regards Karsten Sorry for the late posting in this thread...