[188017] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: About inetnum "ownership"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Constantine A. Murenin)
Thu Mar 3 03:58:16 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWJ7YOQeiin9metTsHDsbECZ-Otf-hGGywF+7TEJUsRbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:32:19 -0800
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 2 March 2016 at 03:46, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> 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 routes have been withdrawn long before any route hijacking cases would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.
Care to explain why noone has bothered to seek punitive damages, then?
C.
