If you want to run seperate networks, run separate networks. Different ASes, the whole 9 yards; perhaps a re-reading of rfc1930 is in order?
That brings us back to the discussion of PI space. If de-aggregating my /20 didn't work, then I'd either inefficiently use IP space in order to qualify for 2 /20's, or buy a defunct ISP or 2 to get a bunch of /24's in the 192-223 space.
Are you suggesting that either of those (which don't violate any RFCs) options are better than de-aggregating my /20?
Your response was something about "I guess you don't consider redundancy to be intelligent." What's stopping you from using the same two transit providers in both locations? Seems to me you don't value redundancy all that much.
I'm currently using Peer1 in Toronto for transit and they don't have a POP in Ottawa. Having 2 different transit providers in both Ottawa and Toronto has only a marginal improvement in redundancy vs provider A in Ottawa and provider B in Toronto. Even if I could use provider A in both Ottawa and Toronto I wouldn't due to the reduced redundancy. And your assumption about my Ottawa-Toronto link is wrong. I have a 100M point-to-point ethernet link between the cities. I have a 100M transit connection to Peer1 in Toronto, and have issued a letter of intent to a transit provider in Ottawa for a 100M link. -Ralph