On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this policy were to stand, what prevents cable modem users, or dialup users, or webhosting customers, the right to ask to take their /32 with them?
That's an unrealistic (exaggerated) end result if this case becomes precedent. Among networks that filter incoming BGP routes, AFAIK, it's common policy to ignore >/24 prefixes. Announcing /32 routes into BGP would not give anywhere near the global reachability as doing the same with /24 or shorter prefixes. If the [ex-]customer is and remains multihomed (pretty likely if they got PI space), this doesn't even change the size of the global routing table. I assume we have their route now through NAC and some other provider. In a few weeks, we'll still see their route through the other provider and perhaps a new other provider. I still don't agree with what they've done. If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know. I suspect Alex can't post it without being in violation of the TRO since he knows what we'll do with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________