Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new provider. I'd say it would be a violation of the agreement, but I'm not a lawyer. Just a thought. -M -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan@verisign.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Brad Passwaters Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:02 PM To: Matthew Crocker Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:45:40 -0400, Matthew Crocker <matthew@crocker.com> wrote:
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision,
did anyone
actually think they would have a clue?
Here is the solution:
Perhaps before proposing a solution we should make sure that all the facts are in evidence. I might suggest since at least some of the legal documents are available to you at the url below you take time to read them.
http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/
Its not clear at all that what the courts are proposing is that the customer be allowed to keep the addresses forever, just that they have adequate time for an orderly move. Its also not clear that NAC won't receive comensatation for use of their resources. I think those people who have done service provider moves realize that without the help of their old service provider their life could well be hellish. If the requirements for the lack of IP portability are indeed purely technical and not some effort to hold onto customers then service providers have a duty to make almost any reasonable effort to make the transition as painless as possible
--
Brad Passwaters ------------------------------------------ brad.passwaters@gmail.com