> On 20220224, at 15:00, Vasilenko Eduard via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi all, > Could somebody speak on the legal consequences of hijacking unused address > space?
While there might be lawyer related folks, or even actual lawyers, I don't think you will get any legal advice here, for that ask a lawyer, and likely a technical lawyer who is involved in Internet policy and related questions. As a non-lawyer, thus not legal advice but purely personal technical comments: > Imagine the situation that some vendor would push many Carriers to use FC/8 > by cutting a rather big block out of it (/28 for each Carrier). > This address space should have a registry. It is an IANA property till then. Anybody can create their own "Internet" with their own address space in their own routers in their own network, all while using IP related technologies. IANA has little to do with it, as well, it is your own private network. What can happen though, is that the IETF, and then IANA, reassigns address space for a different purpose. At which point everybody using that space clashes with it. See also usage of IPv4 from various /8's that are "not globally routed but used internally". Same goes for IPv6 or any other address space. The Internet, and IETF/IANA/RIRs etc only work as the community decided that that is the way to run it. As an example https://dn42.dev/ already uses fd00::/8. I personally "have" fd42:2a2b:acf1::/48 out of that range (see also https://dn42.ch) Yes, DN42 is "just using that", and mostly it will be fine. The related IPv4 space they use already had quite a few clashes, as RFC1918 space is rare, but if one connects to DN42 you obey their registry and all is fine. > But: > 1. Nobody is using it - nobody would be hurt. > 2. This prefix would be excluded from the Internet (by routing and filtering) > 3. FC/8 is assumed to be used for the closed domain (the purpose of usage is > very similar). Just nobody decided how exactly. Maybe /28 is not how IANA and > IETF would want to split it in the future. > > People could ask "why not GUA"? The answer is: it is difficult to get yet > another /28 GUA from RIR just for the infrastructure. > /28 goal has the technical roots by itself. It is the sort of technical > solution. RIR typically give out the space that one really needs. If you can justify it, you will get it. If you cannot justify it, you likely do not need it. As a LIR can get a IPv6 /29 per default (and then likely never have to ask again).... I would be very surprised if one is a large entity that one cannot receive an extra /28. If there is a special protocol that you need this for, define the protocol, send the draft to the IETF, convince people, and they can assign a great chunk out of that if really justified. > Could such LIR/Carrier have any pressure from any RIR or IANA itself? Likely no. But they will likely get community backlash if it causes issue on the Internet. > Is any restriction in the LIR agreement? > Any legal consequences? (that would push for renumbering). That is really a legal question to ask a lawyer.... but from my POV no. Greets, Jeroen -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
