Re: The same prefix originated within two different ASs

Vadim Antonov <avg@sprint.net> Tue, 11 July 1995 19:42 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14591; 11 Jul 95 15:42 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14587; 11 Jul 95 15:42 EDT
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15167; 11 Jul 95 15:42 EDT
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA56018 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net); Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:34:03 -0400
Message-Id: <199507111934.AA56018@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2); Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:34:03 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:34:03 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:33:59 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@sprint.net>
To: bgp@ans.net, bgpd@merit.edu, cwheeler@interglobe.com
Subject: Re: The same prefix originated within two different ASs

>Can someone please reiterate to me, from experience, reasons why a prefix
>shouldn't be advertised as originating from two separate ASs?

Because it breaks underlying assumption after AS-path based policies that
all prefixes are split into groups by originating AS-es.  I.e. if you
do that somebody's preferences or filters based on originating AS-es
may behave incoherently, potentially creating persistent routing loops.

Since nobody has the complete knowledge of Internet policies breaking
that assumption is not safe.  Who knows what lurks in the dark places.

--vadim