[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Per Heldal
heldal at eml.cc
Thu Sep 21 04:17:48 CEST 2006
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 02:00 +0100, Andy Davidson wrote: > Max Tulyev wrote: > > >This story is about PA/LIR, where (again, in the theory) all is quite > >simply. No money -> closing contarct (as in terms of it) -> getting back > >IPs. > > > > > > You're opening up a huge can of worms here. 'Getting back IPs' means > contacting peers and upstreams and telling these parties to stop > accepting the announcement from the non-paying company. If the company > is still paying bills to their upstreams, do you think upstreams will > take kindly to this action ? What the immediate upstream may think would be irrelevant. *If* there is *ever* consensus within the RIPE community to have the NCC reclaim blocks, there would have to be mechanisms in place to enforce the decision. That would most probably involve a quarantine period for reclaimed prefixes during which transit providers in the region would be asked to black-hole the space. > > The RIPE NCC deleting the inetnum object doesn't mean the addresses stop > routing ... It only takes a handful of large transit providers to black-hole a prefix to render that address-block useless. > > RIPE NCC possibly have no contract with the companies that would need to > stop accepting the prefixes from the debting party. > There are more than enough transit-providers on contract. The immediate upstream of the reclaimed block alone makes no difference. The question isn't if it can be done or not, but whether the RIPE community as a whole really wants such a scheme to be implemented. -- Per Heldal - http://heldal.eml.cc/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20060921/ea4b47e8/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]