Hi Jamie, My $0.02.
As an alternate, is it not better to strengthen the process to determine
whether the applicant did indeed multi-home? There are downsides in that of course. It does place overhead on an entity to test that but what matters more? Ease of access into the ASN club or ensuring high levels of interconnectivity?
I run AS131196. (relatively) small enterprise with a need for redundant connectivity. I don't want to spend my days running BGP, or have the budget for a big gateway, so both my ISPs advertise to me a default route. For the last couple years, AS131196 appeared to be single homed off AS23655. It wasn't until 23655 had that major hiccup a couple of weeks ago that suddenly we started being advertised by 9503. Our prefix is still being advertised by both (prepended 3x towards 9503), but at some point I'll pull down the 9503 advertisement, as there's some funny business going on and I'm still seeing traffic via 9503. Points that I'm trying to make: 1. My commercial arrangement with 9503 explicitly states that the service is for BCP purposes, I.e. It will sit idle. Not advertising the prefix unless I need it, combined with shutting off my primary's port for 24 hours is a simple way to achieve this. Prepending isn't perfect, and 23655 were still advertising our routes through their outage until we shut off the port. 2. In my case, it'd be very difficult for an outside party to determine if I'm multihomed, without either interpreting pieces of paper, or forcing us to do a BCP test. 3. And, if you look very carefully, 131196 is actually registered on our behalf by 23655 - again, trying to simplify my job by not having to do admin functions. So, I've got no direct relationship to those who would want to test me. I understand where you're coming from (I think someone said it costs $50k per route in the BGP table), but I can't see how anything but the Honour Code is going to work, given the table itself isn't black & white, and is muddled with complexities of commercial and technical arrangements. And hey, given that no one implements BCP38, BGP is already an Honour Code implementation; why should the policies be any different? ;) Thanks, Jed. Sent from a small screen.