Re: Using unallocated address space

[Alan Hannan <alan () routingloop com>]

> I know of a case where a LIR assigned a block to an organization and 
> revoked it a year later after the organization did not meet the standard 
> requirements.  The organization is signed on an agreement to follow the 
> standards.  The LIR revoked the IP block, but the upstream ISP continues to 
> announce it since it is signed on an agreement with the organization to 
> provide routing and doesn't want to risk a lawsuit from the 
> organization.   So this block is now dead in the water since it can't be 
> reassigned to any other client since it is in pseudo-use.

  In this scenario you outline, combined with your proposal of
  a registry announcing 'black-holing routes' -- what compels
  the ISP to accept and act upon the routing announcement?

  And how does this different situation protect them from the 
  lawsuits you suggest below?

> No ISP will risk a lawsuit by black-holing something.  This has to be done 
> by the allocation agency (ICANN or ARIN/RIPE/APNIC).

  Certainly there are ISPs that black hole routes for many reasons.
 
  For example, MFNX/Abovenet black hole routes which are considered
  sources of spam.

  Others are listed at http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/participants.html.

  -alan