RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers

["David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>]

> what if an isp with a lot of dedicated line customers in old A space
> takes
> the dive and a few thousand of their customers come to isps each asking
> to
> have 38.42.666.0/24 or whatever routed?
>
> mirjam says
>   o route them now, forcing instant renumbering would add insult to
> injury
>   o give them the normal 90 days to renumber
>
> and she's never led me wrong so far.
>
> randy

        In the example cited, the only obstacle would be registry authority. (After
all, in theory as soon as the registry gets official notification and the
block is no longer advertised, it could be reassigned.) So the fact that
Mirjam said so automatically makes it so.

        But consider a similar case where an ISP 'sort of' goes out of business.
Perhaps they're still BGP advertising their main block, but they've stopped
providing service to a customer and there's a dispute as to whether the
customer was 'cut off' or not. As soon as the ISP cuts off the authority,
doesn't the customer no longer have any claim to (route) the block?

        Isn't this (routing table growth and arguments over who 'really owns' an IP
address block) the reason subassigned IP addresses are (now) non-portable?

        DS