[188018] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: About inetnum "ownership"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bob Evans)
Thu Mar 3 04:13:16 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <56D78289.1040101@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:55:25 -0800
From: "Bob Evans" <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com>
To: "Larry Sheldon" <larrysheldon@cox.net>
Reply-To: bob@FiberInternetCenter.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
As far as I know there is no requirement to announce your assigned or
legacy owned prefixes to the world. You have the right to announce them.
I don't think you can legally stop others from announcing your path to
them. Once you publicly announce something, it's out there.
Oh well, maybe I didn't get the original question. I thought the
discussion was about a network's right to prevent others in the world from
announcing/propagating a route to that network's prefixes. Seemed to be a
legal question and the field analogy someone put forth seemed to apply
well. I can't take credit for that as I simply tuned it and showed how it
fit in a historical way. I think a lawyer would probably make this analogy
in a court.
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
>
> Interesting demonstration of why retreat to analogies does not help in a
> discussion.
>
> A question: If you stop announcing your routes, where will the world
> get them from?
>
> --
> sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
>
>
