Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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


Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.