[188003] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: About inetnum "ownership"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Mar 2 06:48:43 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <1456899158.11868.58.camel@biplane.com.au>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 06:46:09 -0500
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
> Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be
> a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a
> different matter.
Hi Karl,
I'm having trouble seeing the nit you're picking. I can't compel you
to announce my BGP route but if you do announce it and your
announcement is inconsistent with my own then by definition it's
false. If your announcement is consistent with my own then you're
propagating the route as intended and I have no cause for complaint.
> Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any
> jurisdiction?
So far as I know, network operators have interceded and the false
routes have been withdrawn long before any route hijacking cases would
have gone to court.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
