As an alternate, is it not better to strengthen the process to determine
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
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
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? ;)
Sent from a small screen.