Chris writes:
What if, for arguments sake, a court decides that all network numbers are portable or that ownership of networks numbers is inferred unless explicitly stated otherwise?
apnic-011 already says that, at least for addresses allocated in the NZGate timeframe. I haven't found any other APNIC document (expired or not) that states APNIC policy toward address ownership. Do you have a clause in your service contracts that states explicitly what the position is regarding IP numbers you assign to clients? Most ISPs do (and all should). Does it matter? It does if anyone is allocating address space in new blocks without explicitly stating the "ownership" of addresses, but for the old addresses it just means that at worst the routing table space taken up by old addresses doesn't get any smaller. It also matters if an ISP wants to move a bunch old /24 prefixes over to an upstream provider that refuses to deal with them -- so far the ones that have made noises about refusing small netblocks this have backed away from that position. What can be done as a technical group is to develop a consensus on how to retire old /24 prefixes and aggregate them into larger blocks, either through the APNIC's return policy (apnic-072), or through some local arrangement, without grossly impacting on either ISP or customer operations. I think the first step in this is to get the "ownership" issues aired (I don't think it will be "solved") at the ISOCNZ conference tomorrow; at least then hopefully we'll have some idea of what various positions are. I don't think the ex-NZGate issue can be really proceeded on without that. -- don --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog