BTW, in which state did this occur? Any additional pointers?
Thanks,
- ferg
The action is taking place in the Superior Court of State New Jersey.
Please contact me offlist if you are interested in helping further.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:42:26 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein
The action is taking place in the Superior Court of State New
Jersey.
If the Court considers it a state matter, and lacks the ability
to regulate interstate commerce, does that mean out-of-state ISPs
recognizing ARIN's authority are not required to listen to the
announcements?
IANAL.
Eddy
If the Court considers it a state matter, and lacks the ability
to regulate interstate commerce, does that mean out-of-state ISPs
recognizing ARIN's authority are not required to listen to the
announcements?
Who cares what the court thinks? Are you mentioned in the TRO? If not, do a quick look at all CIDRs in ^8001$ and find any sub-CIDRs without _8001_ in the path. Your routers, you decide what to do with the prefix.
Of course, if you just happen to uphold INTERNET STANDARDS and only accept routes from where they should originate, I'll buy you a drink at the next NANOG for being a good netizien. 
IANAL.
IANAL. Hell, I'm not even an ISP.
P.S. That was a serious offer to any and all ISPs.
Yes, I realize I am opening myself to buying quite a few drinks, but that's the point, or at least the hope. Just let me know you are ... uhhh ... "adhering to Internet standards" (in private e-mail) by the end of the week to claim your drink. 
Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who has
been enjoined from "directly or indirectly" preventing the customer from
using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but it needs to be clear that
you aren't doing this at NAC's request, and even so, the judge may take
a dim view of NAC's involvement.
Bob
Of course, using this line of reasoning, NACs original email to the list
could easily be argued to be an indirect intervention. If I were the TRO
holder, and my announcement started to become a new bogon, I'd be at the
judges doorstep with the entire NANOG thread in my hand :-/
//Alif
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.
In fact, I applaud his discretion for not even mentioning the prefix, customer, AS, or anything else which would even HINT that he would violate the court order. In fact, I have suggested that he not do so here in this forum, and Alex has posted language from the TRO stating he is barred from doing so.
IOW: This is simply another _operational_ suggestion to help make the Internet run more smoothly.
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.