I have seen dueling routes more often than I'd like to recall. No one wants to use space that isn't 100% routable. Assuming A has any peers, some traffic will go there and dead-end. Any customer in the block will be unhappy. B will eventually give up. A would be foolish to assign customers in the block until B has given up. If A is a much better connected network than B (since B is acting like an ass) the process is much more definitive. C can, and should be ignored. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. Deepak Jain AiNET -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of jlewis@lewis.org Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:31 PM To: Tony Mumm Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Query: What policies do backbone providers use to determine IP ownership? On Wed, 23 May 2001, Tony Mumm wrote:
I've seen a trend lately where I'm finding out, after the fact, where pieces of larger CIDR blocks are being taken apart by a myriad of unaggregated routes. The other backbone providers freely allowed an announcement of that non-portable space to the Internet without regard to either the owning provider, or to general Internet routing.
Here's a related question. Suppose provider A has a customer C who multihomes with a connection to A and provider B. C uses IP's assigned by A. C terminates service with A...but keeps announcing A's space to B. B propogates the routes to their peers. B and C ignore requests that they stop using A's space and renumber into B's. How does A reclaim their space? One obvious solution is dueling routes...A could announce more specific routes, fouling things up for B and C hoping this will serve as encouragement for C to renumber. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________