On 2 March 2016 at 03:46, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be >> a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a >> different matter. > > Hi Karl, > > I'm having trouble seeing the nit you're picking. I can't compel you > to announce my BGP route but if you do announce it and your > announcement is inconsistent with my own then by definition it's > false. If your announcement is consistent with my own then you're > propagating the route as intended and I have no cause for complaint. > >> Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any >> jurisdiction? > > So far as I know, network operators have interceded and the false > routes have been withdrawn long before any route hijacking cases would > have gone to court.
Care to explain why noone has bothered to seek punitive damages, then? C.
