Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Customer AS

  • From: Daniel Karrenberg
  • Date: Wed Aug 21 21:07:08 1996

  > Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net> writes:
  > 
  > In message <199608170146.SAA20928@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
  > 
  > > In fact, the <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt> draft indicates
  > > that this is one of the few acceptable instances when allocation can be
  > > done by one of the various registries and not by (one of) the upstream
  > > service provider(s). ...
  > 
  > draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt is wrong on this one.

Just for the record: I is one of the few acceptable instances and certainly
does not represent common practise, to the contrary! All regional IRs 
recommend using address space from one of the providers. 

  > If the route comes from one of the providers CIDR blocks, the other
  > more specific route can be ignored farther away in the topology.  If
  > it is a provider independent address it can't be dropped without
  > losing connectivity to it.

Correct.

Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.