Refuse een assignment because it 'cannot' be routed?
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Tue Feb 27 17:57:27 CET 2001
> > >> Now a customer would like to get a static ip but does not want > > ONE static IP address? PA, I assume? > > Yes, PA. > > > > >> If the customers sends a RIPE-141 request to the ISP, can the > > ISP assign a > > >> range but not route it to the customer? I guess, formally, the answer is YES. Because when the customer can document his/her need, then the LIR *may* assign addresses But, holding a block of addresses does not in any way "guarantee" connectivity... > > > > ... which would be extremely useful for ??? routing can be very different things: - distribute the announcement for that address space only within the ISPs IGP - distribute the announcement to direct EGP peers, but with "no-propagate", i.e. for providing access to a particaular server, or to suppoort dual-homing/mutual backup - make the address block (potentially) visible from "everywhere", by announcing the encopmpassing aggregate and/or the particular (more specific) prefix. The usefulness is subject to effects of aggregation and filtering - ... > In order to force the customer to buy a more expensive service which > includes fixed ip! Formally, definition of prodcut packages and charging for services is outside the scope of the rules for address assignment - with the exception that the address space itself must not be sold. > Please understand that nor I nor my employer is doing this or even > advocating this practice. To the contrary: I'm just observing that it > happens and am so displeased about this that I am looking for ways to > counter it. As I said in a different thread, this should be discussed in the frame-work of a BCP, either within RIPE or somewhere else. We might also want to leave it to competition to eventually deal with that (don't hold your breath ;-) > > >> Can it refuse the request on the grounds that it cannot route > > the assigned > > >> range to a dynamic ip? > > > > ... so, you want to rent a house and put a security guard on the entrance > > door not allowing people who bought it to move in. Interesting ... > > I think it is more appropriate to state that someone is looking for a house > but all landlords he meets will move his front door every day unless he pays > tripple rent. > > I suppose the question can be phrased more theoretically as: > > "If a LIR is obliged to assign address space (is it?), No, it is not. An IPS's LIR may have very good reasons (financial, security, AUP...) *not* to assign addresses to an entity wanting to become connected and obtain services, and even become a customer :-) > wouldn't it make > sense to oblige a provider to route it" No. That's what contracts are invented for, either implicitely by subscribing to a service or explicitely by negotiating ToS/QoS. > or the other way'round: > > "If an address space request is made, is the non-willingness of an ISP to > route it sufficient grounds to deny the request?" I think so. Unless there are other valid reasons for an LIR to perform an address assignment for a customer or peer (i.e. PI space, that is *not* accepted by the IPSs routing layer, but may be used on other links of the customer). > > Well, there is no formal policy obligation for you to route the addresses > > you assigned, but what would those addresses then be good for? > > That's the point. Can the customer somehow (e.g. by submitting a ripe-141) > force the ISP to assign him a static ip address? Or will it get him nowhere? It depends what the definition of "customer" looks like in that case. When the ISP does offer a package that includes the privilege to obtain service from the ISP's LIR, then the customer can probably (try to) use force (legal measures or refusing to pay fees). Trying to throw a 141 form at some free dial-in service provider would probably "get you nowhere" :-) But in general I would try to find a different ISP... ______________________________________________________________________ =Hi, = = This is a very interesting problem. = = As far as I am aware there is no obligation to assign IP space =when someone becomes a customer of an entity served by a LIR. Again, I share this view. = Possible problems when submitting a RIPE-141 document: = =- There is no obligation to process the request True =- The LIR may charge for processing the request True =- The LIR may charge for the assignment Not really. This is seen as "selling" addresses! =- The provider may charge for the routing True = You could opt to ask RIPE for a PI allocation, You could find an LIR that is willing to process PI requests, either for a charge or for free, or you can build your own LIR ;-) =but noone is required to route it for you. True, and for both, PI *and* PA =Regards, = =- marcel Regards, Wilfried.
[ lir-wg Archives ]