<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="">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.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>