On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:15:14AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier [that the space is assigned to]?
Non-portable is non-portable. Historically, a sane renumbering window is provided. According to some stories, enforcement of renumbering windows has occasionally taken place by re-use of to-be-revoked space, or its reannouncement to peers in smaller chunks. Of course, the new provider should be able to vet the space, see the 'non-portable' note and tell the customer about multioming-vs-moving, their renumbering guides, contact NAC, etc. It would be an irresponsible provider that would announce another provider's NON- portable spacewithout the customer clearly multihoming and without clearance from the originating provider.
In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further argued that the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively affect the operation of my network.
Portable space is available from the registry. That is their recourse. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE