Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new
provider. I'd say it would be a violation of the agreement, but
I'm not a lawyer. Just a thought.
-M
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Brad Passwaters
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:02 PM
> To: Matthew Crocker
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court
> says yes!)
>
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:45:40 -0400, Matthew Crocker
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision,
> did anyone
> > actually think they would have a clue?
> >
> > Here is the solution:
>
> Perhaps before proposing a solution we should make sure that
> all the facts
> are in evidence. I might suggest since at least some of the
> legal documents
> are available to you at the url below you take time to read them.
>
> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/
>
> Its not clear at all that what the courts are proposing is
> that the customer be
> allowed to keep the addresses forever, just that they have
> adequate time
> for an orderly move. Its also not clear that NAC won't
> receive comensatation
> for use of their resources. I think those people who have
> done service provider
> moves realize that without the help of their old service provider
> their life could
> well be hellish. If the requirements for the lack of IP
> portability are indeed
> purely technical and not some effort to hold onto customers
> then service
> providers have a duty to make almost any reasonable effort to
> make the
> transition as painless as possible
>
> --
>
> Brad Passwaters
> ------------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
