nanog mailing list archives
Re: Customer AS
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg () ripe net>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:22:23 +0200
> 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Customer AS, (continued)
- Re: Customer AS Avi Freedman (Aug 17)
- Re: Customer AS Curtis Villamizar (Aug 17)
- Re: Customer AS Sean Doran (Aug 17)
- Re: Customer AS Curtis Villamizar (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Alex.Bligh (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Curtis Villamizar (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Alex.Bligh (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Avi Freedman (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Sean Doran (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Alex.Bligh (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Daniel Karrenberg (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Curtis Villamizar (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Kim Hubbard (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS David R. Conrad (Aug 21)
- Re: Customer AS Curtis Villamizar (Aug 17)
- Re: Customer AS Sean Doran (Aug 17)
- Re: Customer AS Alex.Bligh (Aug 17)
- Re: Customer AS Sean Doran (Aug 17)
- Re: Customer AS David R. Conrad (Aug 17)