[168597] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Updated ARIN allocation information
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jan 31 08:13:40 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140130235858.3ADEAE14FF7@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 05:10:51 -0800
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 30, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>=20
> In message <384BF687-AD8A-4919-9EAB-723A09854E0D@puck.nether.net>, =
Jared Mauch=20
> writes:
>>=20
>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
>>> as the number of businesses on the net increases. I can see some
>>> interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
>>> accept /28's from this block.
>>=20
>> i suspect it will be more sean doran style 'pay me for your slot'.
>=20
> A /8 slot costs as much as a /28 slot to hold process etc. A routing
> slot is a routing slot. The *only* reason this isn't a legal problems
> at the moment is people can still get /24s. The moment /24's aren't
> readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
> filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
On what basis? How do you have the right to force me to carry your route =
on
my network? Especially in light of the recent strike-down of the net =
neutrality
rules?
> Now as this range is allocated for transition to IPv6 a defence for
> edge networks may be "we can reach all their services over IPv6"
> but that doesn't work for transit providers. Eyeball networks would
> need to ensure that all their customers had access to IPv6 and even
> that may not be enough.
Please point to the law which requires a transit provider to provide =
transit
to every tiny corner of every internet. Please do so for all nations =
where
this may be an issue.
Owen
