| So how is this supposed to work? For instance, I get a /27 and an AS | number, and I want to multihome. But nobody will listen to my | announcements. This is not a workable solution. So you call up noc@foobar.net and offer them $x to listen to and propagate your announcement, and perhaps to act as your agent in transactions with other networks around the world. Or, you could negotiate 1-on-1 with every network who doesn't give you free (or agent-negotiated) access by default. This imposes cost on you because you are consuming an AS number and introducing an unaggregated and unaggregatable prefix into these networks' routing systems. | Multihomers generally announce just a single route and there are less than | 25k AS numbers so the majority of routes is NOT from multihomers so it | seems somewhat harsh to effectively forbid multihoming. Not all multihoming requires the introduction of unaggregated and unaggregatable prefixes. | Is there really no way | we can all agree on a filtering policy that keeps the routing table in | check but still leaves some room for responsible multihoming? Given the vehemence with which some people argue that filtering is a bad idea in the first place, the answer is clearly "no". A better question is, can tools and information be put together to mitigate the problems multihomers may face as network operators try to deal with expanding tables, in the _absence_ of interprovider cooperation? Sean.