> > It's worth pointing out, however, that if case 2 applies and case 1
> > doesn't, then the ISP will still be providing a level of actual packet
> > carrying service to the customer.
> bzzzzt. if the ISPs have sensible policy implementations at the border,
> nobody will be be providing free transit because of accidents of
> adjacency.
I wasn't talking about accidents. The draft TRO could easily be read as
requiring them to hear the announcement and carry the traffic.
"NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any
carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were
utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the current agreement
during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and shall not
interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses,"
"(iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization of access to
and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses."
It's a good point though that this requires you to effectively continue to
provide the customer with service.
DS
