On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matt...@matthew.at> wrote: >> On 3/24/2011 7:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >>> Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community >>> participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee. > >> Would de-peer with Microsoft (or turn down a transit contract from them) >> just because they wanted to announce some Nortel address space? > > Microsoft would likely be able to find someone who would not turn them > down for transit. > >> Would ARIN really erase the Nortel entry and move these addresses to the >> free pool if Microsoft doesn't play along with one of the transfer policies? > > Unknown. I would expect ARIN to erase entries, if the situation exists > where RIR policy requires that, or to refrain from effecting the > transfer in the DB, unless that transfer requested is valid under policy and > and the request is made correctly with all normal requirements met. > >> Would you announce addresses someone had just obtained from ARIN that were >> already being announced by Microsoft? > > Most certainly, some networks would, if assigned space in that block, > probably without noticing Microsoft's announcement. >
It that the right question ? I am sure some networks would also continue to use Microsoft's announcements in this scenario. So, it would be a mess. So, I think that the right question is something more like : If ARIN reassigned the space, and Microsoft continued to announce it anyway, would either announcing entity be have enough of a critical mass that the conflict wouldn't matter to it ? I would submit that any address assignments with continual major operational issues arising from assignment conflicts would not be very attractive. I also don't think that that would be good for the Internet. Regards Marshall > -- > -JH > >
