Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

[Gennady Abramov abramov@localhost]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:00:20AM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
> 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 ? 
> 
> The RIPE NCC deleting the inetnum object doesn't mean the addresses stop 
> routing ...
> 
> RIPE NCC possibly have no contract with the companies that would need to 
> stop accepting the prefixes from the debting party.
The deletion of "route:" object means troubles with routing of the
prefix.
Of course, it is possible to route prefix without corresponding
"route:", but it isn't very easy. And, of course, forget of 
any routing policy with this prefix, you may just to place this prefix
to the Internet somehow. Of course, if you can (Talk with your
upstreams to configure "hand-made" filters, or get an upstream who will
accept "any" from you and have such peers and upstreams, etc).


-- 
С уважением,
Абрамов Геннадий, CCNP
Отдел сетевого управления (NOC)
ЗАО "Демос-Интернет"
Тел.: (495) 737-0436    
http://www.demos.ru/address