Re: About inetnum "ownership"

["Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc () gmail com>]

On 2 March 2016 at 03:46, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote:
> > Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be
> > a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a
> > different matter.
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> I'm having trouble seeing the nit you're picking. I can't compel you
> to announce my BGP route but if you do announce it and your
> announcement is inconsistent with my own then by definition it's
> false. If your announcement is consistent with my own then you're
> propagating the route as intended and I have no cause for complaint.
>
> > Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any
> > jurisdiction?
>
> So far as I know, network operators have interceded and the false
> routes have been withdrawn long before any route hijacking cases would
> have gone to court.

Care to explain why noone has bothered to seek punitive damages, then?

C.