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

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: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20060921/ea4b47e8/attachment.sig>