[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-5: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers

[Kat Hunter]

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 <owen at delong.com> 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 (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200717/2f981433/attachment.htm>