If they have more than one attachement, then they are (currently) using more than one AS - so with "one AS one policy", they should be fine.
[If folks are violating the "one AS one policy" rule, then they are going to have problems that they have brought upon themselves. BGP does not really support more than one AS per policy.]
Where did this come from? I was talking about load balancing between predominantly T1 networks that touch the T3 network in two geographically distant places and require the T3 network to take an exit point that minimizes the slower networks internal distance.
Projections of how much we are going to get from CIDR will be somewhat soft until we started getting a couple of real life examples. I have poked at what we would get under various CIDR strategeies, but as I have not done it for "real", I am not 100% sure yet.
Here is some results from a run that I did of my data a while back: 1381 total nets 646 CIDR routes if CIDRize by site 619 CIDR routes if CIDRize by AUP (NSFNET vs non-NSFNET) 1026 NSFNET nets; 468 NSFNET CIDR routes 355 non-NSFNET nets; 151 non-NSFNET CIDR routes 500 CIDR routes if CIDRize everything together
Even if we just CIDRized by site, it looks like we will get nearly all of the savings that we would get if we fully CIDRized. --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
Alternet has grown very substantially since CIDR allocation was in place, much more so than many other networks (gov agencies, some regionals that were well established early on, etc). So Alternet represents a good case to benfit from CIDR, but maybe not a typical case. I'm glad to hear that Alternet alone can eliminate 700-800 of the routes. Things look optimistic for getting relief from the 19,000 route situation we are now in, if we can just get rolling. Curtis