About inetnum "ownership"

Constantine A. Murenin mureninc at gmail.com
Wed Mar 2 23:32:19 UTC 2016

On 2 March 2016 at 03:46, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer <kauer at 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 routes have been withdrawn long before any route hijacking cases would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?


More information about the NANOG mailing list