I have updated the language changing it from BGP specifically to "a border routing protocol".
-Kat On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:43 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
