North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > NAC had nothing to do with this. I have a long history in this and > other forums of promoting aggregation, with the notable exception of > multi-homed *TRANSIT CUSTOMERS* announcing routes via BGP. Suggesting > providers not accept prefixes which violates both my personal views and > standard Internet doctrine is not something Alex told me to do. To anyone considering doing something like this. Please do not resort to vigilante justice. While I agree that NAC should not have to route this IP addressing to someone else's network, the TRO is exactly that Temporary. NAC and a customer had a dispute. That dispute is before a court. The court said there would be no immediate harm to NAC to continue providing this IP addressing to their customer (NAC is still being compensated for it). If this customer tries to do something that causes NAC immediate harm, then NAC can bring that before the court. We are not to act on the courts behalf to harm another Internet provider under any circumstances. Do also understand that you are seeing one side of the case presented on NANOG. The other side has chosen not to play this out in a public forum. UCI tried to work this out with NAC. Now they are trying to work this out with a judge. Don't add NANOG and the network community to the list of people they have to reconcile with once this is over. The court has not GIVEN the IP addressing to UCI. They just forbid NAC from cutting UCI's legs out from underneath them while UCI moves. I think UCI poses some interesting questions about NAC's business practices in their case. Alex, while I think it sucks that a court had to force you to assist a customer in leaving your services, it doesn't sound like they had much choice from the TRO. I'd recommend you focus your efforts on explaining to a judge the issues that were brought up in the suit and forget about involving NANOG in your court disputes. Gerald A former customer of NAC who can sympathize with UCIs position.