> Speaking as one fo the proposal's authors, I appreciate and agree with that > bit of feedback. The intent was to express the requirement that the customer > route the prefix over multiple upstream ISPs; while in practical terms, BGP > is the only reasonable way to do this, the policy text should not preclude > other approaches. >
I suspect a revision will be forthcoming. I provided a language suggestion to the AC yesterday which I believe addresses this concern, though the language proposed would still require a routing protocol. In this context (IPv4 policy for justifying a /24), approaches which do not involve a routing protocol do not come with the inherent need to use the same prefix among multiple providers and therefore do not require a /24. Owen
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
