Hijacked IP space.

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Nov 4 08:30:48 UTC 2003

1.	RIRs don't sell address space or make any claim of the merchantability,
	routability, or functionality of the address space they hand out.

2.	RIRs assets do not include the unregistered addresses.  They are not
	transferrable and have no book value.

As such, it would be difficult for an RIR customer to successfully sue. 
likely if they explained the problems to the RIR, they could trade for a 
impacted block, but, suing the RIR is unlikely to accomplish much.  The RIR
afterall, only provided a registration service to show in a public database
that as far as the particular RIR was concerned, those integers were unique
to the network operator in question.  They make no claims about the actions
of others WRT those addresses, they just promise not to issue them to 


--On Tuesday, November 4, 2003 7:10 AM +0200 Hank Nussbacher 
<hank at att.net.il> wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Ray Wong wrote:
>> I'm starting to figure that, given the delays, there's been enough damage
>> done that 204.89.224/24 will never be able to get off the blocking lists
>> anyway, so perhaps I'll turn it back in afterall. *sigh*That's what
>> I get for trying to find low-cost ISPs willing to announce portable
>> space.
> So a RIR giving out that /24 would in fact be selling "damaged goods" and
> the customer who got it would be able to sue.  I think RIRs have to make a
> larger effort to protect their assets.
>> Ray Wong
>> rayw at rayw.net
> -Hank

If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20031104/c57eb4bf/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list