[147413] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sad IPv4 story?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Fri Dec 9 16:06:35 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <1B40C293-E7A7-4C17-ACF0-EBE6FE4F42A4@exonetric.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:05:12 -0600
To: Mark Blackman <mark@exonetric.com>
Cc: NANOG Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 9, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Mark Blackman wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> We're going to be hearing a lot more of these. It's the nature of =
finite resources, and of human nature when faced with them. At some =
point, this will find its way into courtrooms under the rubric of a =
barrier to entry. It already has in terms of antitrust when a company =
wanted to move its PA prefix to different upstream.
>=20
> I've had transit service pulled, so the provider can reclaim the /21 =
that was bundled with the transit.
I'm sorry to hear about that... Do you know why they reclaimed the =
block? E.g. was it used to support a "higher margin" service for =
another customer?
-Benson
