RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
>>> william(at)elan.net wrote: >>> I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653), >> Michel Py wrote: >> Good catch William! > Dan Hollis wrote: > This pegasus? http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html Yeah. Michel.
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Michel Py wrote: > > william(at)elan.net > > I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653), > Good catch William! This pegasus? http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html -Dan
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Bravo. - ferg -- "Ray Plzak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced litigator, the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be striving to educate the court to understand more accurately the legal and policy issues involved. Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Jun 29, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Ray Plzak wrote: I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced litigator, the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be striving to educate the court to understand more accurately the legal and policy issues involved. I would like to publicly applaud ARIN stepping up to the plate on this. (Sorry for the AOL-ish post, but ARIN gets a lot of bad press here and I figure they deserve kudos when they Do The Right Thing.) -- TTFN, patrick
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced litigator, the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be striving to educate the court to understand more accurately the legal and policy issues involved. Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> william(at)elan.net > I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653), Good catch William!
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
VJB> From: Vincent J. Bono VJB> I think one avenue of approach will be to see if VJB> ARIN would grant you another contiguous block to VJB> replace not just what the customer got but the VJB> entire block they have polluted. > Edward B. Dreger > I thought of that, too. However, that would require > NAC renumbering an entire /17 because an ex-customer > is too lazy to renumber a /24.[*] If NAC's ex-customer > thinks renumbering a /24 is excessive, what about > something two orders of magnitude larger? Indeed, but that's not the worst part. Should this happen, it would mean that the ex-customer just got PI space for free. Then the floodgates would open and a bunch of "why-not-me-too" would sue their ISPs to transform their PA block into a free PI block. Michel.
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote: > JL> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT) > JL> From: Jon Lewis > > JL> If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know. > > I don't know the rogue netblock, but > http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001 More likely the block in question is being announced by different ASN or announced as part of large NAC space and as such will not show up directly on the above page. I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653), who are probably largest NAC customer (at least based on how often their name is seen when querying rwhois.nac.net) and who got direct ARIN ip block 69.57.160.0/19 right about year ago on 6-20-2003 (but before they already had ip block 216.67.224.0/19 and afterwards they received 69.72.128.0/17 from ARIN in September 2003). In addition to all that they are using lots of other blocks which are the ones directly from NAC space, since NAC is using custom whois server, I can't quickly create exact list, but my estimate it it maybe close to /18. They are probably just lazy to work on moving out of that space, eventhough more then likely they promised to do that two years ago or more when they got first direct ARIN block. But I'm just speculating here, we'll not know for sure until we see large chunk of NAC space announced from somewhere else without having even one NAC transit route in any route server (and if its indeed comes 25653, then my guess is right). -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
JL> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT) JL> From: Jon Lewis JL> If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know. I don't know the rogue netblock, but http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001 may prove insightful. I believe there are people who track announcements and withdrawals; BGP history probably would prove insightful. Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
VJB> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:33:28 -0400 VJB> From: Vincent J. Bono VJB> I think one avenue of approach will be to see if ARIN would VJB> grant you another contiguous block to replace not just what VJB> the customer got but the entire block they have polluted. I thought of that, too. However, that would require NAC renumbering an entire /17 because an ex-customer is too lazy to renumber a /24.[*] If NAC's ex-customer thinks renumbering a /24 is excessive, what about something two orders of magnitude larger? [*] I'm assuming Sabri's lookups yielded a correct answer. Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the > temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret > ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this > policy were to stand, what prevents cable modem users, or dialup users, or > webhosting customers, the right to ask to take their /32 with them? That's an unrealistic (exaggerated) end result if this case becomes precedent. Among networks that filter incoming BGP routes, AFAIK, it's common policy to ignore >/24 prefixes. Announcing /32 routes into BGP would not give anywhere near the global reachability as doing the same with /24 or shorter prefixes. If the [ex-]customer is and remains multihomed (pretty likely if they got PI space), this doesn't even change the size of the global routing table. I assume we have their route now through NAC and some other provider. In a few weeks, we'll still see their route through the other provider and perhaps a new other provider. I still don't agree with what they've done. If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know. I suspect Alex can't post it without being in violation of the TRO since he knows what we'll do with it. -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Alex, I think one avenue of approach will be to see if ARIN would grant you another contiguous block to replace not just what the customer got but the entire block they have polluted. If they will not, as I suspect, then you can show that the TRO while upholding the status quo is causing you harm, since the space is not something that can be replaced. -vb - Original Message - From: "Alex Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:47 AM Subject: Re: Can a customer take IP's with them? > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > * Alex Rubenstein: > > > > > b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business agreement, > > > and is leaving NAC voluntarily. > > > > The customer probably has a different opinion on this particular > > topic, doesn't he? > > No. This is a clear situation where the customer has canceled his service > with us in writing. > > > > If there's a contract dispute, it actually makes a lot of sense to > > issue the order you quoted. There's no harm to you (or the Internet > > as a whole) because the customer just appears to be another > > multi-homed customer of yours, provided that the prefix that is > > involved reaches a certain size. OTOH, if you were allowed to > > reassign the IP address space while the dispute is being resolved, > > this could severely harm the customer's business. > > > > Of course, this setup can be just temporary. If you are ordered to > > permanently give up that particular prefix, then you'll have reason to > > complain. > > I can't address all of the points you raise, but I can say the following: > > a) NAC did not terminate the customers service in any respect. The > customer chose, on his own, to terminate their service with us. This fact > is undisputed. Also, NAC was willing to continue the customers service (we > were not forcing them out the door). > > b) In regards to your passage, "because the customer just appears to be > another multi-homed customer of yours", this is a key point. The customer > *WILL NOT* be a customer of NAC any longer once they physically leave. The > key point here is that the customer has gotten a TRO, which allows them to > take the IP address space that is allocated to NAC with them, and NOT HAVE > ANY SERVICE FROM NAC. NAC WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE NETWORKS THAT THEY ARE > MULTIHOMED TO. > > c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the > temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret > ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this > policy were to stand, what prevents cable modem users, or dialup users, or > webhosting customers, the right to ask to take their /32 with them? > > Regards, > >
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > No. This is a clear situation where the customer has canceled his service > with us in writing. Ok, important point. > b) In regards to your passage, "because the customer just appears to be > another multi-homed customer of yours", this is a key point. The customer > *WILL NOT* be a customer of NAC any longer once they physically leave. The > key point here is that the customer has gotten a TRO, which allows them to > take the IP address space that is allocated to NAC with them, and NOT HAVE > ANY SERVICE FROM NAC. NAC WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE NETWORKS THAT THEY ARE > MULTIHOMED TO. This is ths real issue. The restraining order forces you to deliver services to the (ex)customer. Why? Because both the court and apparently the customer do not understand the issue. So things like handing the IP space back to ARIN, assuming it was the only customer on the /24 or you could renumber you other ones, would still be a bad idea. You can play a lot of technical games, but in general courts really dislike technical games. They don't understand them, and consider it close to being in contempt of the court. So the best option you have left is put the ignorance's cost on the people who deserve it. Invoice ex-customer an exorbitant amount of money to keep the infrastructure he needs for his IP's to remain working, *within* your facility. Being under a restraining order doesn't mean you are not entitled to be reimbursed of the costs of the result of such a restraining order. Also, it is not your problem that he can't use his IPs once he moves. He will need to pull a wire, and that happens to be very *very* expensive with NAC, and even if he doesn't want to do business with NAC, he can't use someone elses services. Send the bill. Ensure the payment expires as soon as possible. Then, even if you cannot disconenct the customer until a higher/sane court looked at the matter, you are clearly showing good faith to the courts and the customer, and might actually be awared those bills in a higher court. And talk to the EFF (Cindy Cohn), they might have had similar cases or jurispudence that matches this case closely. You might also want to talk to Robin Gros (former EFF, now IP-Justice) since she might have had similar cases happening when she was working at the EFF herself. And yes, I would also put the restraining order verbatim on a website and solicit comments on it publicly. Paul
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
>> Michel Py wrote: >> In short: drop the monkey on ARIN's back. The issue that >> non-portable blocks are indeed non-portable is ARIN's to >> deal with, and partly why we are giving money to them. > Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > I wonder why ARIN, or even more importantly, ICANN has > not jumped all over this. Seems to me if IP space is not > "owned" or something close to it by ICANN, they have lost > a cornerstone of their power. Indeed, or there's something else we don't know about. >> b) _do_ announce the specific block routed to null0 >> (ARIN has delegated this space to you, if you want to >> announce unallocated parts of it to a blackhole it's >> nobody's business to tell you that you can't). > DO NOT DO THIS. The TRO specifically prohibits him > from doing these types of things. Breaking the TRO > will have immediate and detrimental impact on Alex > and NAC.Net. That remains to be seen, especially if the authority issuing the TRO has no jurisdiction over BGP routing. If you find an attorney that wants your money (easy enough) and a judge who is stupid enough to issue a TRO that I can't wear a green sock and a red sock, I will nevertheless keep wearing a green sock and a red sock and the detrimental consequences are going to be for the bozo that issued the TRO if they try to enforce it and not for me. Judges can be suspended or removed and states can be sued, to. > See my previous post re: liquor & the next NANOG Do you own a winery or something :-) > Alex Rubenstein > c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you > propose (the temporary reassignment of space to an > ex-customer) is in (as I interpret ARIN policy) direct > contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this > policy were to stand, what prevents cable modem users, > or dialup users, or webhosting customers, the right to > ask to take their /32 with them? Exactly, I have one IP address with SBC (formerly Pacific Bell) at home, I'm too lazy to renumber my tunnels if I switch ISPs, so I'm going to require SBC to allow my one IP to be routed somewhere else? Ridiculous. By the way Alex, have you given some thoughts to suing the company that announces parts of your block? Should not be too difficult, if it's not portable and assigned to you. We all like customers that bring lawsuits with them, don't we? And what's the block in question so we can WHOIS it? Michel.
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Alex Rubenstein: > > > b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business agreement, > > and is leaving NAC voluntarily. > > The customer probably has a different opinion on this particular > topic, doesn't he? No. This is a clear situation where the customer has canceled his service with us in writing. > If there's a contract dispute, it actually makes a lot of sense to > issue the order you quoted. There's no harm to you (or the Internet > as a whole) because the customer just appears to be another > multi-homed customer of yours, provided that the prefix that is > involved reaches a certain size. OTOH, if you were allowed to > reassign the IP address space while the dispute is being resolved, > this could severely harm the customer's business. > > Of course, this setup can be just temporary. If you are ordered to > permanently give up that particular prefix, then you'll have reason to > complain. I can't address all of the points you raise, but I can say the following: a) NAC did not terminate the customers service in any respect. The customer chose, on his own, to terminate their service with us. This fact is undisputed. Also, NAC was willing to continue the customers service (we were not forcing them out the door). b) In regards to your passage, "because the customer just appears to be another multi-homed customer of yours", this is a key point. The customer *WILL NOT* be a customer of NAC any longer once they physically leave. The key point here is that the customer has gotten a TRO, which allows them to take the IP address space that is allocated to NAC with them, and NOT HAVE ANY SERVICE FROM NAC. NAC WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE NETWORKS THAT THEY ARE MULTIHOMED TO. c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this policy were to stand, what prevents cable modem users, or dialup users, or webhosting customers, the right to ask to take their /32 with them? Regards,
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
At 3:29 PM -0400 6/25/04, Eric Gauthier wrote: > Only one customer? There are a couple "consulting" firms in particular around here that use arbitrary space on internal networks. Sometimes a currently-dark IP block is configured, so "it works for us". It gets annoying after a while. The worst one I've seen so far is Ticketmaster... last month. If you want to sell tickets through them and connect via the network, they require you to have a private, backend connection to them and then require you to route 29.2.0.0/15, 29.4.0.0/15, and 29.6.0.0/16 via that connection. Several third-party health payors, as well as a few HMOs and the like, do exactly this sort of thing with medical service providers. It makes hospital addressing, at times, rather interesting. Some of them used the rationalization that if the space wasn't in the Internet routing table, it was more secure. To make it worse, a couple further expected you to address some of your hosts with their bogus address space, and then run transport-mode IPSec to them. If you have never had a good sized hospital decide you are their new ISP (or network manager), it's good to find someone that will write prescriptions for legal drugs. On your first site visit, when you start discovering some of their addressing oddities, you will want to go to the pharmacy and get the scripts filled, to help you get through the day. While newer applications, if anything, go overboard for security, some earlier medical applications, especially laboratory instrumentation, just send all their data to 255.255.255.255. I asked one of the programmers why they did that, and he said they didn't know if somebody might plug in a device that needed the data, so they didn't want to be bothered putting in support for it. You will find there are now an assortment of security and privacy laws that the hospital has to support, HIPAA being the best known, but also 21CFR11 for clinical trials, DEA electronic prescribing of controlled substances, and COPPA for pediatric data. Unfortunately, no one has ever decided to harmonize the security requirements for the different mandates. If it helps put things in perspective, the legislation enabling recent extensive modifications and additions to HIPAA was titled the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Act. George Orwell would have loved it.
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> Only one customer? There are a couple "consulting" firms in > particular around here that use arbitrary space on internal > networks. Sometimes a currently-dark IP block is configured, so > "it works for us". It gets annoying after a while. The worst one I've seen so far is Ticketmaster... last month. If you want to sell tickets through them and connect via the network, they require you to have a private, backend connection to them and then require you to route 29.2.0.0/15, 29.4.0.0/15, and 29.6.0.0/16 via that connection. I could be wrong, but somehow, I don't think that they are also known as or have received addresses from: OrgName:DoD Network Information Center OrgID: DNIC Address:7990 Science Applications Ct Address:M/S CV 50 City: Vienna StateProv: VA PostalCode: 22183-7000 Country:US NetRange: 29.0.0.0 - 29.255.255.255 CIDR: 29.0.0.0/8 NetName:MILX25-TEMP NetHandle: NET-29-0-0-0-1 Parent: NetType:Direct Allocation Comment:Defense Information Systems Agency Comment:Washington, DC 20305-2000 US RegDate: Updated:2002-10-07 The argument of "what if one of the DoD research groups on campus is trying to connect to this space for classified work?" didn't work... especially given that the blocks aren't in our BGP tables. Alas, my protests failed against the might of our self-funding sports program. Eric :)
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
At 7:29 PM -0400 6/23/04, Robert Blayzor wrote: Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination. Were I the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned telephone number portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain what additional work had to be done to the POTS network to implement portability. Should the plaintiff start mumbling, I'd impugn his credibility, and then ask a bunch of hard questions about SS7 (including the TCAP mechanism for portable number translation), how IP routing works, how IP routing has no authoritative mechanism for global translation, etc. I'd interrogate the customer about DNS and why they weren't able to solve their portability requirement with it. I'd look for detailed familiarity with RFC 2071 and 2072. I wouldn't expect the customer to be able to answer many of these. As the defendant, I would expect to bring in my own expert witness who is very good at explaining these differences, and how the telephone and IP routing environments are different. Apples and Oranges. My point exactly, that enough explanation will show there is no operational or protocol equivalent to number portability. The defendant has to be prepared to shoot down that argument. There is something called DNS which handles how hosts are "known" by. The whole reason behind DNS is so a user owns a name but doesn't matter what "number" they have. Well, yes. In the telco world you do not have this option since many businesses advertise their telephone number. (ie: yellow page ads, business cards, advertisements, etc.) When it comes to "the net" IP addresses are irrelevant as people are known by name, names which are transparently resolved to IP addresses. The technology exists so that people don't have to bring IP space with them. The routing tables are big enough as it is and the last thing we need is a bunch of judges comparing number portability to IP space portability. Again, I don't see how we are in disagreement. What I was describing was an approach to getting the judge and/or jury to see they are NOT the same thing.
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 06:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:48:14 MDT, John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > IANAL, but it appears that from a contractual perspective it is clear > > that ARIN retains all 'ownership' rights to the address space. They > > subdivide it to those who are willing to contractually agree to their > > conditions, but the ownership is never transferred. I would think that > > that is an important distinction to make. > > IANAL either, but I believe that ARIN doesn't claim to own 32-bit integers. > What they're providing is a *registry service* to keep track of what entities > are using what ranges of 32-bit integers, to prevent duplication. There's no > *requirement* that you use any particular address range, except that by > community agreement, nobody wants to deal with non-registered addresses. > > If ARIN actually *owned* the address space, we'd not have the perennial > flame-war regarding 1918-space source addresses on the global net - everybody > would do a really fast and good job of implementing ingress/egress filtering > because ARIN could sue you for using their addresses... :) I think you meant IANA there, not ARIN ;) Indeed nobody will complain if you setup your own RIR and start handing out addresses, it is a registry and those work as long as common believe is that they are the central sources of authority. The same goes for DNS and basically everything else. On another, related note: RFC2544 (C.2.2): 8<-- The network addresses 192.18.0.0 through 198.19.255.255 are have been assigned to the BMWG by the IANA for this purpose. This assignment was made to minimize the chance of conflict in case a testing device were to be accidentally connected to part of the Internet. The specific use of the addresses is detailed below. -->8 Thus 192.18.0.0/15 is IANA ?reserved? for the BMWG (btw note also the "are have been" ;), but in whois.arin.net: 8<-- OrgName:Sun Microsystems, Inc OrgID: SUN Address:4150 Network Circle City: Santa Clara StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95054 Country:US NetRange: 192.18.0.0 - 192.18.194.255 CIDR: 192.18.0.0/17, 192.18.128.0/18, 192.18.192.0/23, 192.18.194.0/24 NetName:SUN1 NetHandle: NET-192-18-0-0-1 Parent: NET-192-0-0-0-0 NetType:Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.SUN.COM NameServer: NS2.SUN.COM NameServer: NS7.SUN.COM NameServer: NS8.SUN.COM Comment: RegDate:1985-09-09 Updated:2003-10-10 ->8 The RFC is from 1999, according to the above Sun owns and is using that block a lot longer what is correct? RFC1944 (from 1996) also notes that block. RFC1062 (from 1988) then again mentions SUN there ;) Anyone who has some thoughts about this? Because a /15 is a very nice testrange if you don't want to break connectivity to existing rfc1918 addresses and of course not to forget SUN if you like watching pictures of highend servers to name an example :) Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:48:14 MDT, John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > IANAL, but it appears that from a contractual perspective it is clear > that ARIN retains all 'ownership' rights to the address space. They > subdivide it to those who are willing to contractually agree to their > conditions, but the ownership is never transferred. I would think that > that is an important distinction to make. IANAL either, but I believe that ARIN doesn't claim to own 32-bit integers. What they're providing is a *registry service* to keep track of what entities are using what ranges of 32-bit integers, to prevent duplication. There's no *requirement* that you use any particular address range, except that by community agreement, nobody wants to deal with non-registered addresses. If ARIN actually *owned* the address space, we'd not have the perennial flame-war regarding 1918-space source addresses on the global net - everybody would do a really fast and good job of implementing ingress/egress filtering because ARIN could sue you for using their addresses... :) pgpBurI3BX8Gu.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> > It's worth pointing out, however, that if case 2 applies and case 1 > > doesn't, then the ISP will still be providing a level of actual packet > > carrying service to the customer. > bt. if the ISPs have sensible policy implementations at the border, > nobody will be be providing free transit because of accidents of > adjacency. I wasn't talking about accidents. The draft TRO could easily be read as requiring them to hear the announcement and carry the traffic. "NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the current agreement during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and shall not interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses," "(iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization of access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses." It's a good point though that this requires you to effectively continue to provide the customer with service. DS
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:40:06 -0700 David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > a TRO against nacs.net has no effect on the behavior of providers > > such as verio who won't honor the advertisement of the subnet > > in BGP. the customer would have to, one-by-one i think, go after > > everybody with the relatively common policy of ignoring such > > advertisements (isn't sprint one of these? that'd be a pretty big > > hunk of internet to be disconnected from. sprint having no > > contractual relationship with the idiot, er, customer in question, > > it'd be hard for the customer to get anywhere there.) > > > > in other words, by itself the requested TRO incompletely solves > > the problem, making it fairly pointless. > We don't know enough about the specifics to know if this argument works or > not. There are two obvious cases where it doesn't: > 1) The block in question is large enough (or located in legacy space) such > that most/all providers will listen to it anyway. maybe. many filtering policies against legacy space are pretty severe (e.g., filter at /16 for legacy B space.) you'd have to have a block of /20 or larger for modern allocations. > 2) The customer's new provider meets with their old provider directly and > the new block is inside a larger block the original provider will continue > to advertise. (This is a very common case if both providers are large.) > It's worth pointing out, however, that if case 2 applies and case 1 > doesn't, then the ISP will still be providing a level of actual packet > carrying service to the customer. bt. if the ISPs have sensible policy implementations at the border, nobody will be be providing free transit because of accidents of adjacency. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> a TRO against nacs.net has no effect on the behavior of providers > such as verio who won't honor the advertisement of the subnet > in BGP. the customer would have to, one-by-one i think, go after > everybody with the relatively common policy of ignoring such > advertisements (isn't sprint one of these? that'd be a pretty big > hunk of internet to be disconnected from. sprint having no > contractual relationship with the idiot, er, customer in question, > it'd be hard for the customer to get anywhere there.) > > in other words, by itself the requested TRO incompletely solves > the problem, making it fairly pointless. We don't know enough about the specifics to know if this argument works or not. There are two obvious cases where it doesn't: 1) The block in question is large enough (or located in legacy space) such that most/all providers will listen to it anyway. 2) The customer's new provider meets with their old provider directly and the new block is inside a larger block the original provider will continue to advertise. (This is a very common case if both providers are large.) It's worth pointing out, however, that if case 2 applies and case 1 doesn't, then the ISP will still be providing a level of actual packet carrying service to the customer. It is grossly unfair to expect a provider to do this for free, assuming they didn't do something equally unfair to the customer. Which is why it will really come down to the merits of the actual dispute between the customer and the ISP. The TRO is an interesting sideshow, but really in the scheme of things not a particulary big deal. Remember, to get a TRO you must show that you (likely) deserve it equitably, otherwise the hardship issue doesn't come into play. It is, however, a good warning for ISPs. Make sure your contracts with your customers stipulate that IP assignments are to follow ARIN's published policies and that they may be revoked by you or ARIN for non-compliance with standard practices. Also clearly state what your renumbering policies and advertisement by other provider policies are. What's obvious to you may not be obvious to your customers and you can't expect to be assured of being able to enforce your contracts with ARIN on your customers. DS
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:25:45 -0700 David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reason I'm pointing out which strategies are unlikely to work is not > because I hope they won't work but because I want him to make sure to > emphasize the strongest possible arguments. IMO, these are: you omit argument 4: a TRO against nacs.net has no effect on the behavior of providers such as verio who won't honor the advertisement of the subnet in BGP. the customer would have to, one-by-one i think, go after everybody with the relatively common policy of ignoring such advertisements (isn't sprint one of these? that'd be a pretty big hunk of internet to be disconnected from. sprint having no contractual relationship with the idiot, er, customer in question, it'd be hard for the customer to get anywhere there.) in other words, by itself the requested TRO incompletely solves the problem, making it fairly pointless. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> additionally, how is the ISP to account to ARIN for this block should > they go back for more space? They show ARIN a copy of the TRO. Really. > there is a widely accepted understanding of how this is all supposed > to work, and if the ex-NAC customer succeeds in gaining this TRO, > and it becomes a pattern across the industry, then everybody's > connectivity, router tables, and support budget will likely suffer. Unfortunately, courts are generally not impressed by the "if everybody did it" argument. In each case, they'll look at the actual incrementlay harm the TRO will do in that particular case. I do agree, however, that it's very important that if these cases do come to court, the ISPs win as many of them as possible. Each loss makes the next loss easier. The reason I'm pointing out which strategies are unlikely to work is not because I hope they won't work but because I want him to make sure to emphasize the strongest possible arguments. IMO, these are: 1) The emergency is of the customer's own creation. He had plenty of time to renumber and didn't. 2) There is no significant harm in renumbering immediately. Techniques such as 1-to-1 NAT exist for exactly this purpose. 3) DNS creates a portable namespace, so there's no legitimate portability issue here. This is not like bringing your phone number with you when you change providers but like bringing your phone *line* with you when you move across the country. I would not try to argue that it harms you significantly to allow them to continue using the IP space. I just don't see any honest way to show that there's real harm. Perhaps in your specific situation there's such a way. But defending abstract principles about router table sizes isn't likely to work. The court will weigh the harm of the one advertisement. Don't forget, though, the customer can't get the TRO, regardless of the balance of the hardships, unless they're likely to be entitled to it. So look into the details of how the contract got terminated, and if it's because of the customer's own actions, they're not likely to be entitled to the relief the TRO seeks to get anyway. DS
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:00:15 -0700 David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why? Nobody cares who owns the IPs, just whether or not the ISP allows the > customer to continue using them, which the ISP certainly has the ability to > do. although the IP address block becomes damaged goods, as there are more than a few ISPs that will ignore any announcement that's broken out of an aggregate. if your /24 is broken out of TWD space, sure, people will listen, but if you've got a /21 that was given to you by NAC, and you're not a NAC customer any more, then i somehow suspect you'll have trouble reaching verio space, just to name one. additionally, how is the ISP to account to ARIN for this block should they go back for more space? there is a widely accepted understanding of how this is all supposed to work, and if the ex-NAC customer succeeds in gaining this TRO, and it becomes a pattern across the industry, then everybody's connectivity, router tables, and support budget will likely suffer. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> Not directed at anyone specifically, but has anyone noticed that on > these lists, people tend to focus on whether or not people's analogies > are correct, rather than trying to answer the original question? So long as you continue to focus on the analogy as it relates to the original question, rather than picking at aspects of the analogy that have nothing to do with the original question, you're fine. Unfortunately, it's very common to attack the analogy rather than show why the analogy doesn't apply. In cases where we're dealing with things that have not been dealt with before, analogy is a powerful tool of persusasion. I'm sure arguments like "IP addresses are just like telephone numbers" has been used and will continue to be used to argue that IP addresses must be portable to preserve competition. In this case, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that they're not alike because they are routed in very different ways but totally unreasonable to argue that they are not alike because they differ in length. Analogy is formalized in law in the form of precedent. Lawyers will argue that their case is exactly like some other case that was ruled in favor of the litigant they analogize their client to. It's critical to be able to distinguish your case from apparently similar cases when the ruling in the apparently similar case isn't the one you want. This particular case isn't about ownership at all. It's about whether or not the ISP can or cannot continue to allow the customer to use those IP addresses. It's about what hardship will be placed on the customer if they are not allowed to continue to use them against what hardship will be placed on the ISP if they do. To get a TRO, you need to show two things. One is that the balance of the hardships favors you. That is, that you will be more seriously hurt if you don't get the TRO than the other side will be if you do. Unfortunately, it will be hard to argue that in this case. It really doesn't hurt the ISP too much if they allow their customer to continue using the IPs for, say, 6 months. At least, unless there's something very unusual about this case that we don't know. Courts are not impressed usually with theoretical harm. The ARIN arguments are just that. Theoretically, if everyone ported their IP space, we'd all be harmed. However, there is no real harm in compelling the ISP to continue to allow their customer to advertise the IP space for a few months. The customer will argue that forcing them to renumber in less time will cause them real harm. (This may or may not be true and a court may or may not find the argument impressive. I'm just saying that trying to argue theoretical harm due to principles will likely not work.) The court will likely look at the harm imposed on the ISP for this one block. However, you also must always show that it is more likely that you will prevail in your main claim than that you will not. No matter how much the balance of hardships tips in your favor, you will not get a TRO if you cannot show the court that you are quite likely to be found entitled to the relief the TRO asks for if there were a full trial to determine such. We don't know anything about the actual issues in dispute in this case, so we can only speculate on this. I think courts will in general follow the contract between the ISP and the customer. If the contract doesn't say, industry practice is (at least IMO and experience) to allow the customer a reasonable period to renumber (3 months? 6 months?) unless the customer terminated the contract for no reason at all. (If the ISP raised the price, then the renumbering period would likely apply. If the customer just decided to end the contract when the ISP would extend it at the same price, then no renumbering period applies since the customer can continue to buy service through the renumbering period at terms they already found reasonable.) Harder cases include when the ISP terminates the customer for cause or when external situations change the ability of the customer to continue to use the ISP's services. IANAL. It certainly wouldn't hurt to clearly state your expectations in this regard in your contracts though. Don't rely on your contracts and policies with ARIN to be enforceable against third parties. DS
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote: > > > If you ran a museum, and you contracted for the use and display of an > > artifact, and then somehow entered into a contract to sell somebody else > > that artifact (even though you had no property rights), the original > > contract supercedes the second contract. Additionally, because there is no > > alternate source for the item in question (being an artifact and all), the > > museum can't be forced to acquire the same item (potentially at a loss) to > > complete the second contract; they would just have to return the money. > > Your analogy is valid, it just doesn't show what you think it shows. A > court could certainly order the museum to provide the buyer the artifact to > the extent that they were able to do so. That's all the TRO is asking for. > The TRO doesn't say anything about property rights, it just asks to prevent > the ISP from interfering in their use of those IPs. Not that we've been arguing this point, but why should a judge feel compelled to issue the TRO? All NAC has to do is put forth an accepted industry solution for dealing with emergency renumbering: 1-to-1 NAT. Offer a price to set this up, just to demonstrate that the customer is quibbling over a very small amount of money. Then, if possible, show how they can cause NAC irreperable harm if they are allowed to announce part of your space. Then, when NACs lawyers point out the ARIN policies (both regarding property rights and regarding the customers obligations and requirements under the contract signed when they accepted their PI space), there's really no logical argument that can be seized upon by the judge to demonstrate irreparable harm to the customer by being forced to give up their IPs. One thing that will definitely impact this particular case significantly: the judge is going to seize upon the fact that the customer had plenty of opportunity (1 year) to move from non-portable IP space to provider independant IP space. That was the customer's express purpose of acquiring the IP space from ARIN, as their request form will inherently attest to. They were negligent to not implement a solution in that year, and since the "irreparable harm" can be completely eliminated with an inexpensive technical solution, there's no case (from where I sit). Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination. Were I the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned telephone number portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain what additional work had to be done to the POTS network to implement portability. Should the plaintiff start mumbling, I'd impugn his credibility, and then ask a bunch of hard questions about SS7 (including the TCAP mechanism for portable number translation), how IP routing works, how IP routing has no authoritative mechanism for global translation, etc. I'd interrogate the customer about DNS and why they weren't able to solve their portability requirement with it. I'd look for detailed familiarity with RFC 2071 and 2072. I wouldn't expect the customer to be able to answer many of these. As the defendant, I would expect to bring in my own expert witness who is very good at explaining these differences, and how the telephone and IP routing environments are different. Apples and Oranges. There is something called DNS which handles how hosts are "known" by. The whole reason behind DNS is so a user owns a name but doesn't matter what "number" they have. In the telco world you do not have this option since many businesses advertise their telephone number. (ie: yellow page ads, business cards, advertisements, etc.) When it comes to "the net" IP addresses are irrelevant as people are known by name, names which are transparently resolved to IP addresses. The technology exists so that people don't have to bring IP space with them. The routing tables are big enough as it is and the last thing we need is a bunch of judges comparing number portability to IP space portability. -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: http://www.inoc.net/~dev/ Key fingerprint = 1E02 DABE F989 BC03 3DF5 0E93 8D02 9D0B CB1A A7B0 Host System Not Responding, Probably Down. Do you want to wait? (Y/N)
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
| Why? Nobody cares who owns the IPs, just whether or not the ISP allows | the customer to continue using them, which the ISP certainly has the | ability to do. Not necessarily. Use of the IPs is effectively licensed to the ISP by the RIR, and sublicensed by the ISP to the user. If either breaches any conditions under which the IPs are licensed, then the ISP should expect to LOSE the right to sublicense them. -- Richard Cox
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Not directed at anyone specifically, but has anyone noticed that on these lists, people tend to focus on whether or not people's analogies are correct, rather than trying to answer the original question? On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:57:25 -0700, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > If you ran a museum, and you contracted for the use and display of an > > artifact, and then somehow entered into a contract to sell somebody else > > that artifact (even though you had no property rights), the original > > contract supercedes the second contract. Additionally, because there is no > > alternate source for the item in question (being an artifact and all), the > > museum can't be forced to acquire the same item (potentially at a loss) to > > complete the second contract; they would just have to return the money. > > Your analogy is valid, it just doesn't show what you think it shows. A > court could certainly order the museum to provide the buyer the artifact to > the extent that they were able to do so. That's all the TRO is asking for. > The TRO doesn't say anything about property rights, it just asks to prevent > the ISP from interfering in their use of those IPs. > > DS > >
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
does your contract with your customers state that the space is non-portable, that they can't take it with them and that they WILL have to renumber ?? If so then they are asking the court to change the contract you and they entered, which i doubt would happen. the legal risk here is if the court gets it in their head that IP's are like phone numbers and that they (numbers) should be portable.. Judge: "So what exactly is an IP address" Plantif: "Judge, an IP address is a unique number that is assigned to each computer on my clients network. It unique like a phone number, and like each person in the company has a unique phone number, they must have a unique IP address" Judge: "So basicly its like a phone number for computers." Plantif: "Yes" This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination. Were I the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned telephone number portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain what additional work had to be done to the POTS network to implement portability. Should the plaintiff start mumbling, I'd impugn his credibility, and then ask a bunch of hard questions about SS7 (including the TCAP mechanism for portable number translation), how IP routing works, how IP routing has no authoritative mechanism for global translation, etc. I'd interrogate the customer about DNS and why they weren't able to solve their portability requirement with it. I'd look for detailed familiarity with RFC 2071 and 2072. I wouldn't expect the customer to be able to answer many of these. As the defendant, I would expect to bring in my own expert witness who is very good at explaining these differences, and how the telephone and IP routing environments are different. also how much space are we talking about here ?? a /19 or a /27 ? or ??? If its smaller than a /20, Hell let them announce it, most places won't take the route and their connectivity will be dorked. You might also advise ARIN that this customer has IP space that is not being used and that it should be reclaimed as they didn't renumber from your space. john brown On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:16:48AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote: (also sent to nanog) Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier [that the space is assigned to]? According to ARIN regulations, the space does not "belong" to us but we have the right to assign or revoke the space to our customers as we see fit. In addition ARIN regulations specifically prohibit us from transferring or selling the IP space to another customer (even if we want to). NAC has a customer who is leaving NAC. As part of normal procedure (and also because the space provided to us by ARIN is non portable), the customer has been informed that the IP space used by the customer will not be available to be used by the customer subsequent to them leaving us. It should be mentioned that the following facts exist, and cannot be disputed: a) customer has obtained space directly from ARIN over a year ago, but has chosen not to renumber from space allocated from us. This was solely their choice, and we did not restrict this in any way. b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business agreement, and is leaving NAC voluntarily. Thus, they are attempting to file for and obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO), and ask for the following: -- start -- "NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the current agreement during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and shall not interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, > including, but not limited to: (i) by reassignment of IP address space to any customer; aggregation and/or BGP announcement modifications (ii) by directly or indirectly causing the occurrence of superseding or conflicting BGP Global Routing Table entries; filters and/or access lists, and/or (iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization of access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses. NAC shall provide CUSTOMER with a LOA within 7 days of CUSTOMERS's written request for sale, NAC shall permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER Address to ANY carrier, IP transit, or IP peering network." -- end -- In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further argued that the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively affect the operation of my network. NAC does not want to be forced to rely on a customer's ability to properly make complex routin
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> Is this analogy really accurate? In your analogy, the person who > initially purchases the shrimp actually *owns* the shrimp at that point. > With IP address space, the ISP does not own the space that it allocates. > It's really just sub-letting the space already allocated to it. Doesn't matter. This issue has nothing to do with ownership. It just has to do with the ISP continuing to allow their customer to use the IPs. The ISP certainly has the ability and authority to do that. > IANAL, but it appears that from a contractual perspective it is clear > that ARIN retains all 'ownership' rights to the address space. They > subdivide it to those who are willing to contractually agree to their > conditions, but the ownership is never transferred. I would think that > that is an important distinction to make. Why? Nobody cares who owns the IPs, just whether or not the ISP allows the customer to continue using them, which the ISP certainly has the ability to do. DS
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> If you ran a museum, and you contracted for the use and display of an > artifact, and then somehow entered into a contract to sell somebody else > that artifact (even though you had no property rights), the original > contract supercedes the second contract. Additionally, because there is no > alternate source for the item in question (being an artifact and all), the > museum can't be forced to acquire the same item (potentially at a loss) to > complete the second contract; they would just have to return the money. Your analogy is valid, it just doesn't show what you think it shows. A court could certainly order the museum to provide the buyer the artifact to the extent that they were able to do so. That's all the TRO is asking for. The TRO doesn't say anything about property rights, it just asks to prevent the ISP from interfering in their use of those IPs. DS
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
David Schwartz wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote: [snip] For instance, if what you say were true, all an ISP would have to do in order to "sell" their IP space is to create a contract stating that they are doing so. Exactly. If they did that, a court would likely enjoin them from making any action to interfere with the customer's use of those IP addresses. A court would likely find the contract binding upon the parties that entered into it. Hey, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar Communications(408) 933-4387
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote: > > Contracts are rarely as binding as people think they are. Of course, I'm > > no lawyer, I just hate paying them. > > Let me try to give you a hypothetical to show you why ARIN is irrelevent. > Suppose I am a member of the Longshoreman's assocation and you have a > contract to buy shrimp for $8/pound provided you only resell it to members > of the LA. You then enter into a contract with me to sell me shrimp for > $10/pound. But then I leave the LA. Ooops, now you can no longer resell me > the shrimp. So you break our contract and I sue you. Does your contract with > your shrimp provider matter? If you continue to sell me shrimp even though > I'm not in the LA, who does your shrimp supplier sue? You or me? That's not a valid analogy. There are property rights conveyed properly at every step of the way; the distributor who is contractually bound to sell shrimp to you at $10 would be required, by your contract with him, to acquire shrimp from an alternate source, one that didn't involve violating contractual obligations, or else the shrimp distributor runs the risk of being sued by you. Basically, there are other sources of shrimp. If the distributor contracted himself into a corner where he's losing money because he didn't have an "out" in the contract with you in the event you leave LA, then he needs a new lawyer. So instead, let me give you a valid analogy. If you ran a museum, and you contracted for the use and display of an artifact, and then somehow entered into a contract to sell somebody else that artifact (even though you had no property rights), the original contract supercedes the second contract. Additionally, because there is no alternate source for the item in question (being an artifact and all), the museum can't be forced to acquire the same item (potentially at a loss) to complete the second contract; they would just have to return the money. Basically, you cannot grant rights contractually that you do not have in the first place. This is one of the easiest ways to have a contact or part of a contract rendered void. I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong ;) Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:36:56 -0700 David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For instance, if what you say were true, all an ISP would have to do in > > order to "sell" their IP space is to create a contract stating that they > > are doing so. > Exactly. If they did that, a court would likely enjoin them from making any > action to interfere with the customer's use of those IP addresses. A court > would likely find the contract binding upon the parties that entered into > it. there's a word for selling something that you don't own. richard (i've got that bridge around here some where, anyone want to buy it?) -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
>Let me try to give you a hypothetical to show you why ARIN is irrelevent. >Suppose I am a member of the Longshoreman's assocation and you have a >contract to buy shrimp for $8/pound provided you only resell it to members >of the LA. You then enter into a contract with me to sell me shrimp for >$10/pound. But then I leave the LA. Ooops, now you can no longer resell me >the shrimp. So you break our contract and I sue you. Does your contract with >your shrimp provider matter? If you continue to sell me shrimp even though >I'm not in the LA, who does your shrimp supplier sue? You or me? Is this analogy really accurate? In your analogy, the person who initially purchases the shrimp actually *owns* the shrimp at that point. With IP address space, the ISP does not own the space that it allocates. It's really just sub-letting the space already allocated to it. IANAL, but it appears that from a contractual perspective it is clear that ARIN retains all 'ownership' rights to the address space. They subdivide it to those who are willing to contractually agree to their conditions, but the ownership is never transferred. I would think that that is an important distinction to make. Perhaps not. John --
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote: > > > In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or > > > not IP space > > > should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has > > > made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further > > > argued that the court could impose a TRO that would > > > potentially negatively > > > affect the operation of my network. > > A court will likely decide this based upon the terms of > > your contract and > > what the court thinks is fair. They will likely give very little > > consideration to common practice or ARIN's rules. > Actually, I don't think that's the case. ARIN still owns the numbers, NAC > is just leasing them. Therefore, ARINs rules supercede anything > contractual between NAC and the customer. Yes, but the court won't care about that. They'll simply enjoin the ISP from interfering with the customer's use of those IP addresses. ARIN can do whatever they want about it, but that would be a totally separate issue. > For instance, if what you say were true, all an ISP would have to do in > order to "sell" their IP space is to create a contract stating that they > are doing so. Exactly. If they did that, a court would likely enjoin them from making any action to interfere with the customer's use of those IP addresses. A court would likely find the contract binding upon the parties that entered into it. > Contracts are rarely as binding as people think they are. Of course, I'm > no lawyer, I just hate paying them. Let me try to give you a hypothetical to show you why ARIN is irrelevent. Suppose I am a member of the Longshoreman's assocation and you have a contract to buy shrimp for $8/pound provided you only resell it to members of the LA. You then enter into a contract with me to sell me shrimp for $10/pound. But then I leave the LA. Ooops, now you can no longer resell me the shrimp. So you break our contract and I sue you. Does your contract with your shrimp provider matter? If you continue to sell me shrimp even though I'm not in the LA, who does your shrimp supplier sue? You or me? DS
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:06:54 + (GMT) "Edward B. Dreger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RW> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT) > RW> From: Richard Welty > RW> i had a customer once who had, for no reason they could > RW> ever clearly explain, arbitrarily used ericson's IP space for > RW> their own internal network. > Only one customer? we were a small outsourced network monitoring/management business (since bought by someone else, several years ago now.) another way to look at it is that at one point in time, 25% of our customer base was using "improper" ip address space (not our fault, we knew better. legacy is a bitch.) > It gets annoying after a while. when you're trying to do SNMP, it gets beyond annoying, it seriously cramps your network engineering style. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Jun 23, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Edward B. Dreger wrote: RW> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT) RW> From: Richard Welty RW> i had a customer once who had, for no reason they could RW> ever clearly explain, arbitrarily used ericson's IP space for RW> their own internal network. Only one customer? There are a couple "consulting" firms in particular around here that use arbitrary space on internal networks. Sometimes a currently-dark IP block is configured, so "it works for us". It gets annoying after a while. Reverse NAT the Ericsson space to RFC1918 space, and hax0r the NS to give out 10-dot addresses for Ericsson hostnames. :) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
RW> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT) RW> From: Richard Welty RW> i had a customer once who had, for no reason they could RW> ever clearly explain, arbitrarily used ericson's IP space for RW> their own internal network. Only one customer? There are a couple "consulting" firms in particular around here that use arbitrary space on internal networks. Sometimes a currently-dark IP block is configured, so "it works for us". It gets annoying after a while. Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Krzysztof Adamski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since this customer has it's own space now, and as long as it is as large > as the NAC space, they can do a simple 1-to-1 NAT at the border. This > should minimise the hardship to them drastically. er, right. as long as the customer in question never needs to talk to whoever NAC reassigns the space to. i had a customer once who had, for no reason they could ever clearly explain, arbitrarily used ericson's IP space for their own internal network. as long as they didn't need to talk to ericson they were ok (yes, they used NAT at the border, but we needed to see their internal IP address space, which made for some serious annoyance.) richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Chris Ranch wrote: > That's the crux of the biscuit. Your case depends on whether you > provided for this in your contract with the customer. If its missing, > you have a big challenge on your hands. No RFC or ARIN policy is a > binding legal document. If its there, your chances are much better. So that contract I signed with ARIN isn't binding? http://www.arin.net/library/agreements/rsa.pdf "8. REVIEW OF APPLICANTS NUMBERING RESOURCES. ARIN may review, at any time, Applicants use of the previously allocated numbering resources or other Services to determine if Applicant is complying with this Agreement, the Policies, and using the Services for their intended purposes. Without limiting the foregoing, if Applicant is an Internet Service Provider, Applicant agrees that it will use the numbering resources solely for uses consistent with its application, including, for example, its internal infrastructure or to provide Internet access to its customer base. If ARIN determines that the numbering resources or any other Services are not being used in compliance with this Agreement, the Policies, or for purposes for which they are intended, ARIN may: (i) revoke the numbering resources, (ii) cease providing the Services to Applicant, or (iii) terminate this Agreement." And of utmost importance: "9. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the numbering resources are not property (real, personal or intellectual) and that Applicant shall not acquire any property rights in or to any numbering resources by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise. Applicant further agrees that it will not attempt, directly or indirectly, to obtain or assert any trademark, service mark, copyright or any other form of property rights in any numbering resources in the United States or any other country." Seems pretty clear to me. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Jun 23, 2004, at 1:11 PM, Chris Ranch wrote: A court will likely decide this based upon the terms of your contract and what the court thinks is fair. They will likely give very little consideration to common practice or ARIN's rules. That's the crux of the biscuit. Your case depends on whether you provided for this in your contract with the customer. If its missing, you have a big challenge on your hands. No RFC or ARIN policy is a binding legal document. If its there, your chances are much better. I disagree. ICANN has legal standing as the "owner" of all IP space. If NAC wrote a contract that said "we'll sell you this /16 for $100K", it would not be valid. At least I hope it is not, or the whole Internet is in deep d00 d00. (The again, we probably already are. :) ARIN owns the IP space, and ARIN says the customer 1) Cannot take PA space with them, and 2) Must renumber into the PI space they were given. It sure would be nice if the NAC contract said "you can't take IP space with you", but I really do not think it is necessary. Also, since NAC is paying ARIN for that space, I am not sure why this would not constitute theft. If I lease a parking lot and give you a space when you rent an apartment from me, you cannot get a TRO to use the parking space after you stop renting the apartment from me. -- TTFN, patrick
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Title: RE: Can a customer take IP's with them? Sorry about the html. ^%$%&*.! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Ranch Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:12 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Can a customer take IP's with them? Hello Alex, > > In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether > > or not IP space should be portable, when an industry- > > supported organization (ARIN) has made policy that the > > space is in fact not portable. It can be further argued that > > the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively > > affect the operation of my network. > > A court will likely decide this based upon the terms of > your contract and what the court thinks is fair. They will > likely give very little consideration to common practice or > ARIN's rules. That's the crux of the biscuit. Your case depends on whether you provided for this in your contract with the customer. If its missing, you have a big challenge on your hands. No RFC or ARIN policy is a binding legal document. If its there, your chances are much better. So, do you discuss non-portable address space assignment in your contract? Where was this case filed? NJ or federal court? Do let us know how it turns out. This will establish a key legal precedent. Chris
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Title: RE: Can a customer take IP's with them? Hello Alex, > > In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether > > or not IP space should be portable, when an industry- > > supported organization (ARIN) has made policy that the > > space is in fact not portable. It can be further argued that > > the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively > > affect the operation of my network. > > A court will likely decide this based upon the terms of > your contract and what the court thinks is fair. They will > likely give very little consideration to common practice or > ARIN's rules. That's the crux of the biscuit. Your case depends on whether you provided for this in your contract with the customer. If its missing, you have a big challenge on your hands. No RFC or ARIN policy is a binding legal document. If its there, your chances are much better. So, do you discuss non-portable address space assignment in your contract? Where was this case filed? NJ or federal court? Do let us know how it turns out. This will establish a key legal precedent. Chris
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Since this customer has it's own space now, and as long as it is as large
as the NAC space, they can do a simple 1-to-1 NAT at the border. This
should minimise the hardship to them drastically.
K
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Jess Kitchen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> > Actually, I don't think that's the case. ARIN still owns the numbers, NAC
> > is just leasing them. Therefore, ARINs rules supercede anything
> > contractual between NAC and the customer.
>
> I may be missing the point here, but the address space in question is
> probably of a PA status as opposed to PI - hence they are deemed
> non-portable in the first instance.
>
> Given that the customer has had an alternative block and been given more
> than reasonable time to renumber I would say that the ball is firmly in
> Alex's court - not his fault if they can't get their sh*t together.
>
> Just thinking, the easiest way forward might be to simply to refuse to
> deaggregate on the basis of "the good of the Internet" - ignoring any
> multihomers that NAC may have out of their aggregates, for the sake of
> argument.
>
> Additionally according to the size of the block and filtering, 8001 will
> probably up transiting the traffic anyway with no commercial agreement in
> place, which is obviously unacceptable.
>
> I'd dig out initial contract(s) with the customer, as if there was no
> clause there specifically outlining ownership of address space (yes, I
> know the concept is a fallacy) then you could go with whatever ARIN
> recommendation was in force at the time.
>
> I had some space from way back when which I think was previous to these
> sort of issues with regard to portability ('94-95), culminating in a
> letter from the RIR involved saying words to the effect of "you should
> return the address space for aggregation reasons, but legally you don't
> have to"
>
> Regards,
> Jess.
>
> --
> Jess Kitchen ^ burstfire.net[works] _25492$
> | www.burstfire.net.uk
>
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Andy Dills wrote:
> Actually, I don't think that's the case. ARIN still owns the numbers, NAC
> is just leasing them. Therefore, ARINs rules supercede anything
> contractual between NAC and the customer.
I may be missing the point here, but the address space in question is
probably of a PA status as opposed to PI - hence they are deemed
non-portable in the first instance.
Given that the customer has had an alternative block and been given more
than reasonable time to renumber I would say that the ball is firmly in
Alex's court - not his fault if they can't get their sh*t together.
Just thinking, the easiest way forward might be to simply to refuse to
deaggregate on the basis of "the good of the Internet" - ignoring any
multihomers that NAC may have out of their aggregates, for the sake of
argument.
Additionally according to the size of the block and filtering, 8001 will
probably up transiting the traffic anyway with no commercial agreement in
place, which is obviously unacceptable.
I'd dig out initial contract(s) with the customer, as if there was no
clause there specifically outlining ownership of address space (yes, I
know the concept is a fallacy) then you could go with whatever ARIN
recommendation was in force at the time.
I had some space from way back when which I think was previous to these
sort of issues with regard to portability ('94-95), culminating in a
letter from the RIR involved saying words to the effect of "you should
return the address space for aggregation reasons, but legally you don't
have to"
Regards,
Jess.
--
Jess Kitchen ^ burstfire.net[works] _25492$
| www.burstfire.net.uk
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space > > should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has > > made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further > > argued that the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively > > affect the operation of my network. > > A court will likely decide this based upon the terms of your contract and > what the court thinks is fair. They will likely give very little > consideration to common practice or ARIN's rules. Actually, I don't think that's the case. ARIN still owns the numbers, NAC is just leasing them. Therefore, ARINs rules supercede anything contractual between NAC and the customer. For instance, if what you say were true, all an ISP would have to do in order to "sell" their IP space is to create a contract stating that they are doing so. Contracts are rarely as binding as people think they are. Of course, I'm no lawyer, I just hate paying them. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
I would have to say no. However, we will typically send an email to the customer and their new provider giving them 60 days to renumber their network. After that time it is fair game to reallocate to another customer or blackhole or whatever. The new provider will typically push the customer to renumber once they get the email. [Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:15:14AM -0400] Alex Rubenstein Inscribed these words... > > > > Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce > non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their > choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier > [that the space is assigned to]? > > According to ARIN regulations, the space does not "belong" to us but we > have the right to assign or revoke the space to our customers as we see > fit. In addition ARIN regulations specifically prohibit us from transferring > or selling the IP space to another customer (even if we want to). > > NAC has a customer who is leaving NAC. As part of normal procedure (and > also because the space provided to us by ARIN is non portable), the > customer has been informed that the IP space used by the customer will not > be available to be used by the customer subsequent to them leaving us. > > It should be mentioned that the following facts exist, and cannot be > disputed: > > a) customer has obtained space directly from ARIN over a year ago, but has > chosen not to renumber from space allocated from us. This was solely their > choice, and we did not restrict this in any way. > > b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business agreement, > and is leaving NAC voluntarily. > > Thus, they are attempting to file for and obtain a temporary restraining > order (TRO), and ask for the following: > > > -- start -- > > "NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any > carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were > utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the current agreement > during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and shall not > interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, > including, but not limited to: > > (i) by reassignment of IP address space to any customer; > aggregation and/or BGP announcement modifications > > (ii) by directly or indirectly causing the occurrence of > superseding or conflicting BGP Global Routing Table entries; filters > and/or access lists, and/or > > (iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization of > access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses. > > NAC shall provide CUSTOMER with a LOA within 7 days of CUSTOMERS's written > request for sale, > > NAC shall permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER Address to ANY > carrier, IP transit, or IP peering network." > > -- end -- > > > In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space > should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has > made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further > argued that the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively > affect the operation of my network. > > NAC does not want to be forced to rely on a customer's ability to properly > make complex routing updates that if done improperly could disrupt the entire > NAC network. We believe there is a great danger to NAC that their routing > mistakes could take down some or all of our network infrastructure. > > Another VERY important issue to bring up: If customer is granted the legal > right to continue to use IP space that is registered to NAC by ARIN, NAC > runs into the very serious problem of being liable for all of the Spam > that could be generated by the customer and all of the RBLs that the > carrier may be added to [that of course will effect all of NAC's > customers] with no ability to revoke the IP space to protect itself. This > has to potential to effect the NAC network in a catastrophic manner. > > I'd love any comments from anyone. > -- Stephen (routerg) irc.dks.ca
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Christopher J. Wolff wrote: > Isn't renumbering an obligation? It depends on what day you talk to ARIN. Or perhaps it depends on what most benefits ARIN when you talk to them, I'm not sure. I had an allocation from ARIN that wasn't big enough to renumber into (after telling them that I planned to do exactly that), and was told that I didn't need to, and wasn't expected to. Then when I came back for another allocation later, I was told I didn't qualify for a larger space (again, this second allocation still wouldn't be enough for me even to renumber into from the space I had the first time I went to them for an allocation). I was told that I didn't qualify because I hadn't renumbered after the first allocation. >>I wonder if their ARIN application says anything about planning to >>renumber their existing space from NAC into the newly assigned space... -- Jeff McAdams "He who laughs last, thinks slowest." -- anonymous signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:15:14AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce > non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their > choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier > [that the space is assigned to]? Non-portable is non-portable. Historically, a sane renumbering window is provided. According to some stories, enforcement of renumbering windows has occasionally taken place by re-use of to-be-revoked space, or its reannouncement to peers in smaller chunks. Of course, the new provider should be able to vet the space, see the 'non-portable' note and tell the customer about multioming-vs-moving, their renumbering guides, contact NAC, etc. It would be an irresponsible provider that would announce another provider's NON- portable spacewithout the customer clearly multihoming and without clearance from the originating provider. > In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space > should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has > made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further > argued that the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively > affect the operation of my network. Portable space is available from the registry. That is their recourse. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> This > has to potential to effect the NAC network in a catastrophic manner. > > I'd love any comments from anyone. Legal comments should be solved by legal means. 1. Ask ARIN if their legal counsel would be willing to file a "friend of the court" brief to help the judge understand that this customer has no legal right to those addresses. 2. If the TRO is already in place, then ask the court to order your customer to cease and desist any current and future spamming or network abuse activities. And ask the court for permission to take appropriate action to protect your network in the event that any such activities are reported to you. At least that way there will be some limits.
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce > non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their > choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier > [that the space is assigned to]? > "NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any > carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were > utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the current agreement > during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and shall not > interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, > including, but not limited to: I don't even see a time limit mentioned here. Are they planning to snatch the IPs away from NAC indefinitely? Which part of non-portable did they not understand? You're paying ARIN a yearly maintenance fee on those IPs. If you end up in court, that should be pointed out. If the ex-customer is no longer paying you for service, then they have no right to continue to use your IP space. If you wanted to be "really nice", you might allow them some grace period (days, weeks?) in which to renumber into either their own IP space or their next provider's. AFAIK, common practice when switching carriers and renumbering is to have overlapping service with the old and new providers while you renumber. At the very least, you should get an IP rental fee out of them if they want the space indefinitely. If this case goes badly, it'll have some pretty serious implications wrt current ARIN policies. i.e. All address space becomes portable...who pays the fees if ARIN says it's your space but a customer has "stolen" it from you in court?. I suggest you contact ARIN and see if they're aware of any legal precedents that would be helpful or if they have counsel that might be helpful to you in upholding ARIN policy in court. BTW...who's the customer? I think this is someone most providers would want to avoid dealing with. This has also served as an example suggesting that if it's not already in there, all customer contracts should specifically say that any IP space assigned by the provider to the customer will be revoked if/when the customer's service is terminated. I'll have to see if ours have anything about that. -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Jun 22, 2004, at 11:10 PM, Christopher J. Wolff wrote: David, Isn't renumbering an obligation? I am not sure however RFC 2071 Touches on this subject in section 4.2.3 but is ambiguous as to the nature of when the renumber should take place. 4.2.3 Change of Internet Service Provider As mentioned previously in Section 2, it is increasingly becoming current practice for organizations to have their IP addresses allocated by their upstream ISP. Also, with the advent of Classless Inter Domain Routing (CIDR) [11], and the considerable growth in the size of the global Internet table, Internet Service Providers are becoming more and more reluctant to allow customers to continue using addresses which were allocated by the ISP, when the customer terminates service and moves to another ISP. [SNIP] For obvious reasons, this practice is highly discouraged by ISP's with CIDR blocks, and some ISP's are making this a contractual issue, so that customers understand that addresses allocated by the ISP are non-portable. [SNIP] It should also be noted that (contrary to opinions sometimes voiced) this form of renumbering is a technically necessary consequence of changing ISP's, rather than a commercial or political mandate. In my opinion, which counts for nothing in this case, I would hope that 12 months was enough time for the company to renumber. Unless this decision to terminate services with NAC was 'just made' I think that space from ARIN 12 months ago was a heads up that their non-portable space should be eliminated from their network. Just my $.02 with some RFCs tossed in, davidu David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net http://david.ulevitch.com -- http://everydns.net
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> David, > > Isn't renumbering an obligation? > > >I wonder if their ARIN application says anything about planning to > >renumber their existing space from NAC into the newly assigned space... > > > >-davidu It's hard to see how his customer failing to meet obligations to ARIN is going to be considered relevant to his relationship to his customer. ARIN isn't a party to the dispute, and the ARIN renumbering requirements aren't directly intended to benefit the ISP. In fact, one could argue that a customer renumbering is to the detriment of their ISP because it reduces lock in. A court is going to look very specifically at three things: 1) What is the hardship to the customer if the TRO is not granted. 2) What is the hardship to the ISP if the TRO is granted. 3) Is the customer likely to prevail in whatever is the actual claim that gave rose to the TRO (which we have no clue). I think it doesn't impose a significant hardship on the ISP for the court to grant the customer the right to continue using the IPs and advertise them from another provider for some reasonable amount of time. How much of a hardship forcing the customer to renumber immediately is, I don't know. And what the real claim is, I don't know either. The tack I would take is to use the kettle defense -- to attack all the prongs. First, I'd argue that there is no hardship to the customer in forcing them to renumber immediately, spreading the pain out over time doesn't lessen it. I'd further add that the TRO's false urgency was created by the customer -- they already had plenty of time to renumber, so if losing the IPs was such a hardship, it's only because they failed to mitigate it by acting diligently. Second, I'd argue that letting them keep the IPs is a significant hardship on me, because it makes me responsible for resources over which I have no control whatsoever. A security problem might require immediate filtering to protect my other customers, and I won't be able to do that. Third, I'd argue that the customer always knew that the ISP's were his only so long as he continued to buy my service, and so he is asking for something to which he knows he has no entitlement. All of this assumes that you didn't disconnect him for a bad reason and were reasonable in negotiations with him. You weren't really trying to lock him in and using his IPs and his difficulty with renumbering to blackmail him for more money, were you? DS
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
David, Isn't renumbering an obligation? >I wonder if their ARIN application says anything about planning to >renumber their existing space from NAC into the newly assigned space... > >-davidu David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net http://david.ulevitch.com -- http://everydns.net
Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Jun 22, 2004, at 10:40 PM, David Schwartz wrote: IANAL, seek competent legal advice from a lawyer with experience in this area. I'm sure you can work out some sort of compromise where you let them keep using their IP space for a reasonable period of time (3 months? 6 months?) and they renumber in that time. I'm fairly sure they don't expect to keep your IPs forever and I'm fairly sure you don't need them back immediately. Then what was the whole year they had ARIN assigned IP space for? 12 months is plenty of time to renumber for most size organizations. I wonder if their ARIN application says anything about planning to renumber their existing space from NAC into the newly assigned space... -davidu David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net http://david.ulevitch.com -- http://everydns.net
RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
> In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space > should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has > made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further > argued that the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively > affect the operation of my network. A court will likely decide this based upon the terms of your contract and what the court thinks is fair. They will likely give very little consideration to common practice or ARIN's rules. > Another VERY important issue to bring up: If customer is granted the legal > right to continue to use IP space that is registered to NAC by ARIN, NAC > runs into the very serious problem of being liable for all of the Spam > that could be generated by the customer and all of the RBLs that the > carrier may be added to [that of course will effect all of NAC's > customers] with no ability to revoke the IP space to protect itself. This > has to potential to effect the NAC network in a catastrophic manner. You'll just have to explain to people that the traffic didn't originate on, terminate on, or transit your network and therefore there is no justification for holding you responsible. When arguing against the TRO in court, make sure to point out that this TRO would make you responsible for behavior over which you have no control. However, the court will likely find that failure to grant the TRO puts a greater hardship on your soon-to-be-former customer than granting the TRO puts on you. Courts do not look well on artificial attempts to penalize a customer for changing providers. Lock in is considered anti-competitive. They will likely see your revocation of the IP addresses (or failure to offer them separately for a reasonable fee) as a case of lock in. Standard industry practice, AFAIK, is to allow customers to keep their IP addresses for a reasonable amount of time unless you have always had a policy of not allowing customers to advertise any of your IP space through any other providers ever. IANAL, seek competent legal advice from a lawyer with experience in this area. I'm sure you can work out some sort of compromise where you let them keep using their IP space for a reasonable period of time (3 months? 6 months?) and they renumber in that time. I'm fairly sure they don't expect to keep your IPs forever and I'm fairly sure you don't need them back immediately. DS
