-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2/26/15 9:40 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Owen, > > I don't want to discuss too much details since I'm acting chair, > but I'm afraid that "unique routing policy" is vague and it may > qualify some usecases that private AS may also work.
Can't agree more here with the Chair. There can be a unique routing policy even if you are single homed, if you are doing AS-PATH Poisoning. Controversial, but then as we like to say, my network my rules. Another example may be sending different BGP communities per prefix through AS-Boundaries. Getting more commonly supported for blackhole routing. so, unique routing policy cannot be equated with Multihome. We need more clarity on 'unique routing policy', other then just saying multihoming is what defines - -gaurab -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlTv5IQACgkQSo7fU26F3X1PLwCeL3SAntJECI3WpVFrT9dtTx1u 91cAoN/ia9mmFF/ybsJ0SCPrrpkd1tId =jipx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
