On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:35 PM, "Murphy, Sandra" <sandra.mur...@sparta.com> wrote: > Speaking as regular ol' member > >> That all depends on the policy undertaken by each specific provider, >> doesn't it? How can you tell the difference between a route with no ROA >> because the registry has decertified, and a route with no ROA simply >> because one hasn't ever been created? > > To an ISP who wants to reclaim address space from a customer who has walked > or violated their agreement, the ability to decertify that allocated space is > a very good feature.
One would hope that ISP's are smart enough to have signed legally binding agreements with their customers to whom they've 'leased' IP address space, as part of the customer's Internet transit service. And, if such a situation were to arise, they would first look to seek advice from their legal counsel *before* taking any actions which may result in damages/harm being caused to that former customer's operations, such as revocation of certificates that would decertify the address space occupied by that customer. Generally, but perhaps not always, both parties usually come to a mutual agreement as to a timetable whereby the former customer is able to renumber out of the former address space in order to return it. > You certainly would not want to end up with a system that would not allow > reclaiming address space. One should question the validity of this statement in the face of IPv6, which (for all intents and purposes) is nearly "unlimited". On the one hand, RIR's have (IMO) extremely generous allocation policies for IPv6 address space, at the moment, and any business would be foolish to not consider approaching their RIR(s) to acquire PIv6 space to number their networks to never have to worry about having to renumber (ever). On the other hand, for those sites that may not be fortunate enough to acquire PIv6 space and, instead, need PAv6 addresses ... the future is far from certain. However, in my opinion, the following are at least plausible in the near future: a) "Loss" of IPv6 addresses, due to customer's walking, is considered by ISP's as an acceptable cost of doing business, i.e.: not worth the costs to engage legal counsel to reclaim them; b) We (the IETF -or- /the market/) figure out less painful multi-homing with PAv6 addresses. The IETF may yet figure this out with something like ILNP (Experimental) or something that is developed in HOMENET. OTOH, the market may solve this on its own by adopting ULAv6+NPTv6. Just my $0.02, -shane > --Sandy > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
