providers merger

[Rafal Maszkowski]

To druga wersja listu dot. scislejszej wspolpracy ICM ze SZCZECINem, ciagle
jeszcze go nie wyslalem, przeczytawszy w drafcie, ze juz przewidzieli takie
pomysly (moja opcja 1). W tej formie wlasciwie nie ma o co pytac - szczegoly
opcji drugiej powinny interesowac najwyzej BGP peers. Wiec wysylam tutaj.
Zawracac glowe wszystkim @isi.edu?

R.

To: 6bone w ISI.EDU

I would like to share our pTLA prefix with another site in Poland. Working
together we will get more redundancy and more involvement from this other
group. I am considering various options:

- they could propagate our prefix as a pNLA - this is forbidden by routing
  rules, even more explicitely in recent draft
- they could use our ASN for propagating pTLA prefix simultaneously (if the
  software allows) with their pNLA prefixes (using a separate ASN for this)
- provider's branch option (testing 'provider buys another provider' on 6BONE:)
  - their router could work just as our another router, only placed in another
  city

I think there is no problem with 3rd option, would not insist on breaking rules
by 1st, I wonder if 2nd is legitimate. What do you think?