"we" really don't care about that, do we? The "real" issue imho is to make sure that just one prefix makes it to the core/DFZ/<your favourite term here>.

...to make sure that no more than one prefix makes it to the core routing tables. If the organization heavily deaggregates these prefixes on an extranet, then this is fine as long as the owner of the extranet has no problem with it. The real issue is that the Internet has no owner and therefore it is not clear who should manage routing guidelines/recommendations. Since this is a grey area for the RIRs, might I suggest that all issues of routing be removed from IPv4, IPv6 and ASN policies in order to collect them together in a single "Routing Recommendations" document? This can then contain the necessary prose to clarify the differences between the Internet and other internetworks. That way we no longer have to worry about ambiguous references to "advertising" routes in the policies.

And as has been pointed out already, from the point of view of an RIR this is (should be?) more like a (strong) recommendation than a formal *address policy* aspect. If this recommendation is violated, the RIR doesn't have appropriate means to sanction anyway...

All the more reason to collect this material in a document separate from the policies themselves. --Michael Dillon