[34649] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using unallocated address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Thu Feb 15 15:07:06 2001
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:02:45 -0800
From: Alan Hannan <alan@routingloop.com>
To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010215120245.A46812@routingloop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010215210449.00af8de0@max.ibm.net.il>; from hank@att.net.il on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:13:52PM +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I know of a case where a LIR assigned a block to an organization and
> revoked it a year later after the organization did not meet the standard
> requirements. The organization is signed on an agreement to follow the
> standards. The LIR revoked the IP block, but the upstream ISP continues to
> announce it since it is signed on an agreement with the organization to
> provide routing and doesn't want to risk a lawsuit from the
> organization. So this block is now dead in the water since it can't be
> reassigned to any other client since it is in pseudo-use.
In this scenario you outline, combined with your proposal of
a registry announcing 'black-holing routes' -- what compels
the ISP to accept and act upon the routing announcement?
And how does this different situation protect them from the
lawsuits you suggest below?
> No ISP will risk a lawsuit by black-holing something. This has to be done
> by the allocation agency (ICANN or ARIN/RIPE/APNIC).
Certainly there are ISPs that black hole routes for many reasons.
For example, MFNX/Abovenet black hole routes which are considered
sources of spam.
Others are listed at http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/participants.html.
-alan
