In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > > I was looking through draft-ietf-sidr-arch-00.txt and I noticed this: > > 5.2.2. Multi-homing > > If a multi-homed subscriber wants multiple ASes to originate > routes for prefixes that it holds, then it must explicitly > authorize each of them to do so by issuing a ROA for each AS in > question. > > Does this address the solution where multihomer M uses ISPs A and B, > and M's prefix is injected into BGP by both A and B and NOT by M? > I.e., "inconsistent origin AS", which is frowned upon. > > If not, the text is unclear. If so, why is there no discussion of the > normal situation where the multihomed AS advertises its prefix itself? > > Same thing for portable allocations without multihoming, although > there the situation where the ISP originates the prefix is more > common. > > BTW, it would be helpful if the availability of new drafts would be > announced on the list with the draft name in the subject.
If normal means "architecturally pretty" then the multihomed prefix advertised by the true oridinator is normal. No special case is needed for that. Many multihomed enterprises don't have their own AS and have a single prefix. They don't run BGP. Instead each provider conditionally originates the prefix on their end with their AS if the link is up. If normal means "more common" then this might be the normal case. Curtis _______________________________________________ Sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
