Updated ARIN allocation information

Brett Frankenberger rbf+nanog at panix.com
Sat Feb 1 01:03:29 UTC 2014

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:10:51AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > A /8 slot costs as much as a /28 slot to hold process etc.  A routing
> > slot is a routing slot.  The *only* reason this isn't a legal problems
> > at the moment is people can still get /24s.  The moment /24's aren't
> > readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
> > filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
> On what basis? How do you have the right to force me to carry your route on
> my network? Especially in light of the recent strike-down of the net neutrality
> rules?
> > Now as this range is allocated for transition to IPv6 a defence for
> > edge networks may be "we can reach all their services over IPv6"
> > but that doesn't work for transit providers.  Eyeball networks would
> > need to ensure that all their customers had access to IPv6 and even
> > that may not be enough.
> Please point to the law which requires a transit provider to provide transit
> to every tiny corner of every internet. 

Speaking only with respect to the US:

I am aware of no such law.

However, I am aware of a law that makes it unlawful for a bunch of
large providers who already have large blocks of space to collude to
prevent new entrants into the market by refusing to carry their routes.

If the guy with the /28 he can't route alleges that that's what's
happening, there are lots of arguments on the other side the ISPs with
the filters could make.  They've been filtering at /24 for a lot longer
than it started to seriosuly harm new entrants into the market ...
there was never any formal agreement to filter at /24; it just happened
(but everyone ended up filtering at /24 ... that wasn't just
coincidence) ...  there are real technical reasons for limiting FIB
size ... and so on.  I don't know who would win the anti-trust lawsuit,
but I wouldn't consider it a slam dunk for the ISPs doing the

I don't expect there to actually be such a lawsuit.  Among other
things, buying a /24 will likely be cheaper than litigating this, so
the only way it gets to trial is an organization litigating on
principle.  And, as I said, I'm not convinced the filtering providers
lose if there is one.  But anytime the big guys collectively have a
policy that keeps out the new entrants, there's anti-trust exposure.

    -- Brett

More information about the NANOG mailing list