North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Using unallocated address space
- From: Alan Hannan
- Date: Thu Feb 15 15:09:10 2001
> 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.