Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Not sure which WG to post this so I'll try here.
My 1st minute feeling would be ncc-services...
Hypothetical case: Suppose there is an ISP that has a /16. They never informed their customers that the assigned PA address space has to be returned once they disconnect from their service (see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html#pa_pi for how it should be done, but wasn't in the past).
I think we need to be a bit more specific, in particular when this relates to pretty old address blocks. Some of those older allocations are (formally) tagged as PI (typical examples are the relics of the last-resort blocks which in some cases were managed by ISPs), others are tagged as UNSPECIFIED. My reading is that - in the PI case the assignments remain valid as long as the _assignee_ fulfills the _original_ assignment criteria, -for the UNSPECIFIED case it was (and still is) a decision made by the holder of the allocation whether the assignemnts get tagged as PI or PA. E.g. in our case we still use the old UNSPECIFIED block, but we always alert the assignee about the condition that the assignment is only valid as long as they receive connectivity from us. And the assignments get tagged as PA. (With a very few exception where the assignments date back to 1993 and 1994.) Still another case would be PI applications and assignemnts which got submitted by way of an ISP/LIR. I don't think that it would technically make sense in this case to require the assignee to return the addresses upon termination of whatever contract the agreed on (returned to the RIR!!), albeit it would formally be possible, I guess. This would probably be close to "charging for addresses", unless it is a very small amount of maoney as an administrative fee.
Now when they see all sorts of announcements of /24s and /22s from their block and they try to recover these lost IPs (contacting the ex-customer or their usptreams to terminate announcement), they are threatened with lawsuits that deletion of the IPs will cause irrepairable harm to the ex-customer and the fact that the LIR never informed the customer of PA recovery therefore entitles them to keep the IPs - forever - or for however long they wish.
I don't want this to be a long thread on the pros and cons and what should or shouldn't be done. What I am *specifically* looking for is actual lawsuits and court cases that have taken place in the RIPE sphere in this area and what the outcome of those lawsuits were.
Thanks, Hank
Wilfried. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~