Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
tme at americafree.tv
Thu Mar 24 22:34:06 CDT 2011
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>> On 3/24/2011 7:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>> Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community
>>> participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
>> Would de-peer with Microsoft (or turn down a transit contract from them)
>> just because they wanted to announce some Nortel address space?
> Microsoft would likely be able to find someone who would not turn them
> down for transit.
>> Would ARIN really erase the Nortel entry and move these addresses to the
>> free pool if Microsoft doesn't play along with one of the transfer policies?
> Unknown. I would expect ARIN to erase entries, if the situation exists
> where RIR policy requires that, or to refrain from effecting the
> transfer in the DB, unless that transfer requested is valid under policy and
> and the request is made correctly with all normal requirements met.
>> Would you announce addresses someone had just obtained from ARIN that were
>> already being announced by Microsoft?
> Most certainly, some networks would, if assigned space in that block,
> probably without noticing Microsoft's announcement.
It that the right question ? I am sure some networks would also continue to use Microsoft's announcements in this scenario. So, it would be a mess.
So, I think that the right question is something more like :
If ARIN reassigned the space, and Microsoft continued to announce it anyway, would either announcing entity be have enough of a critical mass
that the conflict wouldn't matter to it ?
I would submit that any address assignments with continual major operational issues arising from assignment conflicts would not be very attractive.
I also don't think that that would be good for the Internet.
More information about the NANOG