[71773] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Krzysztof Adamski)
Wed Jun 23 12:57:32 2004
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:53:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Krzysztof Adamski <k@adamski.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20040623164642.V12401@platinum.burstfire.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Since this customer has it's own space now, and as long as it is as large
as the NAC space, they can do a simple 1-to-1 NAT at the border. This
should minimise the hardship to them drastically.
K
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Jess Kitchen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> > Actually, I don't think that's the case. ARIN still owns the numbers, NAC
> > is just leasing them. Therefore, ARINs rules supercede anything
> > contractual between NAC and the customer.
>
> I may be missing the point here, but the address space in question is
> probably of a PA status as opposed to PI - hence they are deemed
> non-portable in the first instance.
>
> Given that the customer has had an alternative block and been given more
> than reasonable time to renumber I would say that the ball is firmly in
> Alex's court - not his fault if they can't get their sh*t together.
>
> Just thinking, the easiest way forward might be to simply to refuse to
> deaggregate on the basis of "the good of the Internet" - ignoring any
> multihomers that NAC may have out of their aggregates, for the sake of
> argument.
>
> Additionally according to the size of the block and filtering, 8001 will
> probably up transiting the traffic anyway with no commercial agreement in
> place, which is obviously unacceptable.
>
> I'd dig out initial contract(s) with the customer, as if there was no
> clause there specifically outlining ownership of address space (yes, I
> know the concept is a fallacy) then you could go with whatever ARIN
> recommendation was in force at the time.
>
> I had some space from way back when which I think was previous to these
> sort of issues with regard to portability ('94-95), culminating in a
> letter from the RIR involved saying words to the effect of "you should
> return the address space for aggregation reasons, but legally you don't
> have to"
>
> Regards,
> Jess.
>
> --
> Jess Kitchen ^ burstfire.net[works] _25492$
> | www.burstfire.net.uk
>
