North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Using unallocated address space
> 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
|