Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
Agreed, Look at: http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf Even assuming Kremen was decided as ARIN says; United States District Courts can and do disagree. On Mar 24, 2011, at 2:24 PM, David Conrad wrote: Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on anything related to address policy:
Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
Alright, how about this - let's wait and see what the bankruptcy judge says. Which firm do you practice for? On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:05 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ernie Rubi erne...@cs.fiu.edu wrote: http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf Even assuming Kremen was decided as ARIN says; United States District Courts can and do disagree. Hi Ernie, The case you refer to was a dispute about a trademark which the a particular domain name infringed. The court's theory was that the property right in the trademark (well documented in law) covered the domain name too (fresh precedent). So while a court could disagree about IP addresses, it's not really accurate to say that one has.
Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
Bankruptcy courts have done this with phone numbers, read my paper - the 'phone number as assets' in bankruptcy cases are cited in there. Just saying Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:24 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I see there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures my question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him: Mr. Rubi is likely already aware from his legal studies that it is imprudent to argue cases in public in advance of filing. /John So I wonder rhetorically speaking.. what happens when a bankruptcy court accidentally sells something that doesn't actually exist, something that is 'fictional', or dead... like an appliance warranty without the appliance, or something that consisted of third parties voluntarily doing something for the original holder, without any promise to continue under mistaken belief the third parties had guaranteed something that could be assigned to a successor? Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee. E.g. Suppose I gave my neighbors a 100% discount on widgets for their use, just because they were neighbors, it was the community thing to do or something (legacy IP addresses with no agreement, no fees, contracts, etc). One of them declared bankruptcy, came to the court, and listed as one of their assets 100% widget discounts, and went to sell it to some major retailer, who wants to get a massive number of widgets to resell for profit (my name not mentioned, just as ARIN's name not mentioned)... is there really anything the buyer actually obtains? I mean, it sounds like someone threw 7.5 million into a furnace, unless they are going specified transfer Perhaps they come to ARIN eventually, but ARIN should enforce their policies. Meaning if MS has an RSA in force, all their resources should be compliant with ARIN policies, and all transfer policies should be followed with regards to justified need. I have little doubt that MS will properly construct/justify the need if they are obtaining resources.It's probably an easier/cheaper task for them to justify legitimately under RIR policies than trying to find some method of fighting with the community and risking an outcome that could be unfavorable and sully their own reputation in ways that might be hard to predict. Who knows, they have plenty of resources already and might plan a renumber and return; I would not assume the worst -- -JH
Issues with 23.1.64.0/20?
Anyone else see anything / know of any odd behavior on the prefix yesterday afternoon/today? Here in Miami (NAP) we saw some issues through one of our upstreams and ended up disabling the BGP session, then re-enabling it with a filter to block said prefix. We've since removed the filter and things are stable but would be nice to know what broke 'out there.' Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Good question: Depends on what kind of address space assignment - if you mean legacy IP space, then no there is no case law. Kremen v. ARIN (Northern District of CA) is the only case law out there, but it is on point only as to 'current' IP space. In Kremen, the district court went only as far as saying that ARIN is the only available source for ‘current’ allocations. The court, in a motion to amend a prior ex parte order, found an applicant seeking IP space “could only receive the number resources if he followed ARIN’s procedures, applied for...the resources, and signed ARIN’s standard Registration Services Agreement in effect when the resources were issued. There is no statutory (federal / state) authority on point; other than: Federal statutory law now makes a felony for anyone to “falsely represent oneself to be the registrant...of 5 or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiate the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses.” (See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1037(a)(5), (2003)) Compare this to the well established law on domain name transfers (Anti Cybersquatting Protection Act; WIPO Treaties; state and federal cases). Ernie On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:06 PM, John Levine wrote: Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR. As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments. There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Bay Packet Radio case in 2008, but as far as I know, the ones that have been resolved were resolved without a court's help. There's also plenty of stolen address space still in use by the party that stole it. If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them. R's, John
Re: And so it ends...
OK so the argument is the 'community' is ARIN's source of legal power or is the corporate laws of the State of Virginia? On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:57 AM, John Curran wrote: On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote: Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be reclaimed and reissued. Is any RIR authorized, in a legal sense, to reclaim legacy address blocks that RIR didn't issue? Without that legal authority, is any RIR prepared to accommodate the legal damages stemming from reclamation? (Does the RIR membership support such action, in the first place?) Resources are listed in the ARIN WHOIS database, which is administered per policies established by the community in this region. Short answer: there's no shortage of authority updating that database as long as the community wishes it so. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: And so it ends...
I think it's OK to say you cannot/would rather not answer the question, instead of giving a non-answer. I was trying to follow along with your 'the community acquiescence gives us the legal right to take back legacy IP addresses' argument. Cheers, Ernie On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:58 PM, John Curran wrote: On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Ernie Rubi wrote: OK so the argument is the 'community' is ARIN's source of legal authority or is it the corporate laws of the State of Virginia? Mr. Rubi - ARIN operates the ARIN WHOIS database as part of the mission of organization in serving the community, and we're incorporated in the State of Virginia as nonstock corporation pursuant to the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act. Our corporate documents are available here: https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs.html Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: And so it ends...
That's the question, and it seemed that the answer started to be formulated in terms of 'community acquiescence/policy leads to authority' in a previous email, so I wanted to make sure that was in fact the response to the question, at least in part. ARIN will likely argue that 'this was done already' (i.e. they've taken legacy IP space away from an unwilling/uncooperative holder of said legacy space), but I haven't seen such an example. This is a good debate, a lot of people are already annoyed at these questions and every single one always has an air of 'stfu kid' about them. But then again, a lot of ppl got annoyed at the civil rights movement. (drifting off topic here). You cannot escape these questions and they will be decided firmly (in a legal sense) sooner or later. It may be that this all becomes moot when v6 gets fully deployed, but until then, it's a worthwhile conversation to have. On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: I strongly suspect that his question is actually Does ARIN have any enforceable legal authority to compel an entity to cease using a specific block of address space, absent a contract?
Re: And so it ends...
Um, I think that's what ARIN means when they say changing the registrant on a block from Entity A to Entity B means. That's effectively 'reclaiming'. As I understand it, I think they also contend that the 'community' could say to ARIN 'take back X legacy block' and that ARIN would have no choice but to do it if the 'community' wished it so (via policy process, etc). On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: I think what John Curran is trying to say is that ARIN does not have the authority to reclaim any space
Re: And so it ends...
I don't think that's ARIN's position (someone correct me if I'm wrong), especially if you mean to say they having the same 'rights' as RIRs to transfer/assign/lease/delegate/port those IP numbers. Using the numbers you have is another thing entirely. On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: my interpretation is that legacy holders are sovereign and have the same standing in the community as the RIR's.
Re: And so it ends...
Way off topic here...and into the legal arena: As to the monopoly classification, do you think, at least with ARIN (since it is a US/Virginia corporation) that Sherman Act §2 (i.e. antitrust) principles could be applied to require that it relinquish some of the control over said IP space/database and act in a more competitive manner? What about the other RIRs worldwide? I'm not an antitrust lawyer, but there may be an issue there. There was a paper a while back from a UMiami (Michael Froomkin) professor talking about ICANN and Antitrust. http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0109075 - This is a legal paper, not an engineering paper. I wonder if those same principles could be applied here. On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:42 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: That remains to be seen. If they give up their space, it is unclear that they have any right to transfer it to another organization rather than return it to the successor registry. There is no precedent established showing that this is allowed. Right. Like Compaq returned 16/8 when they acquired Digital (and HP returned 16/8 when they acquired Compaq). That remains to be seen. IANA has declared them the successor registries No. First, IANA does not exist. The term IANA now refers to a series of functions currently performed under contract from the US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA by ICANN. As such it can't declare anything. Second, neither ICANN nor the USG has (to my knowledge) declared the RIRs to be successor registries (whatever they are). The IPv4 registry continues to exist and will undoubtedly be maintained as it always has been. The only real difference is that there aren't any more IPv4 /8s tagged with UNALLOCATED. The other thing to consider is that the RIR doesn't really need to reclaim the block, per se. They can simply stop providing uniqueness to the organizations that don't have a contract with them and issue those numbers to some other organization that has a contract. The other organization would know that their uniqueness is limited to those cooperating in the registry system. Does an organization that has no contract with an RIR have a right to expect that RIR to continue to provide them a unique registration? The RIRs are self-defined geographical monopolies that provide a set of public infrastructure services to the Internet community at large. It's an interesting question whether that service is limited to only those folks who pay -- my guess if the RIRs took this stance, they'd be looking down the barrel of numerous governmental anti-monopoly/anti-cartel agencies. However, pragmatically speaking, the folks who matter in any of this are the ISPs. The RIRs exist primarily as a means by which ISPs can avoid doing a myriad set of bilateral agreements as to who owns what address space to ensure uniqueness. If the RIRs reduce their value by no longer providing that service in an effective way (e.g., by doing what you suggest), I suspect the ISPs would find other entities to provide global uniqueness services. Regards, -drc Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark
Don't take this the wrong way but vote with your feet if you don't like it. Taken to its logical conclusion this is the no one person or corporate entity is 'neutral' rationale/argument - so what? For-profit business organizations (both VZ and TMRK are publicly traded for-profit with shareholders and dividends to pay out) engage in competition and cannot be 'neutral' in at least one definition of the word. What does neutral really mean anyways? Terremark has sold, is selling and will continue to sells services, which I am sure they would like you to 'prefer' over others. So off topic on this list... ::sleeps:: On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote: One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. My two cents, Agreed. An organization being a fully owned subsidiary of one carrier, and claiming to be completely carrier neutral, is an indelible conflict of interest; a highly suspect claim that cannot be cleared up merely by internal policies. It's easy to tell the media that nothing is changing; textbook PR / perception management stuff, adding a little paint to hide the dings, so new buyers will not be alarmed. But what about years from now? Seems they retain the right to impose requirements, make changes in the future, or give their parent organization preferential treatment; with no real promise not to (at least not that we've seen so far). If they are serious about keeping colocation carrier neutral, they should spin off that business (or spin off the IP carrier / transit business), so that one entity has no governance control or appearance of control of the other. -- -JH Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
NSF.gov Unavailable
Um, down for everyone reports it as down for everyone. Any news as to what may be causing it? Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of 45/8 address block
I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way. Appreciation and value are words that most folks at ICANN don't want network engineers to associate with IP addresses. The real value is in routing; is the party line. STLS to me is kind of double speak, ARIN says: this isn't a capital resource, but yet if you go through us and list your 'unused' blocks in this space, we don't care what financial transaction happens behind the scenes. Maybe John can shed more light on this. For some background, go over to the Internet-history mailing list, which included a very lively discussion of ownership interest in IP addresses. Ernie On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only after depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to be greater? Plus, those less altruistic could weigh the options better after real value is associated with the scarce resource.
Carpathia Hosting (AS29748) Contact
Hi all, Anyone from AS29748 with peering auth, can you contact me off list? Thanks, Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu
Re: Terry Childs conviction
Illegal control = Conversion = at least a tort, but could also be a crime. On Apr 29, 2010, at 10:05 PM, William Pitcock wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 21:48 -0400, David Krider wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 16:47 -0500, William Pitcock wrote: Surely even at DeVry they teach that if you refuse to hand over passwords for property that is not legally yours, that you are committing a crime. I mean, think about it, it's effectively theft, in the same sense that if you refuse to hand over the keys for a car that you don't own, you're committing theft of an automobile. I've seen a dismissed employee withhold a password. The owner of the company threatened legal action, considering it, like you, theft. My father-in-law is an attorney, so I asked him about the situation. He said that it wouldn't be called theft, rather illegal control. Same difference, he still committed a crime and anyone who is defending him seems to not understand this. Whatever we want to call that crime, it's still a crime, and he got the appropriate penalty. William
Re: Cisco hardware question
Step #2. Retain legal counsel or talk to general counsel. On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Adcock, Matt [HISNA] wrote: Don't deploy the equipment, demand a refund, and report the reseller to Cisco. I agree completely with Brian - find a good Cisco partner and stick with them. Also, you can't legally buy used Cisco equipment and use the operating system. You can buy the equipment but the OS is absolutely non-transferrable. If you try to get SMARTNet on it red flags will go up and Cisco won't support it. Thanks, Matt Matt Adcock, Manager 334-481-6629 (w) / 334-312-5393 (m) / madc...@hisna.com 700 Hyundai Blvd. / Montgomery, AL 36105 P The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of paper = 1.2 trees, per year By not printing this email, you’ve saved paper, ink and millions of trees From: Brian Feeny [mailto:bfe...@mac.com] Sent: Thu 3/4/2010 3:05 PM To: Kaveh . Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question If you are getting Cisco hardware with configs on it or crashfiles, etc. Then no it is NOT new equipment. Who are you buying from? Are they a Gold partner on Cisco's partner locator? If not, then I have seen some seedy things, and of course i have seen seedy things with Gold partners too, I am just pointing out that the ability to compete and make margin get more and more difficult the lower the partner is on the totem pole and so desperation can drive certain behavior. In general from a cisco Gold partner you can expect as good as 35-40% or so on new equipment for a discount for regular deals. Special pricing for special projects you may be able to get a bit better, and maybe 1% or so better for general products from CDW or a big box company like them. If you are paying 50-60% off list for just individual items you order, then its likely not new and there is likely something shady going on, as no partner is going to get you some special discount pricing on a single 3845 for example. All of your good gold partners are going to charge around the same give or take a few percent on material. So find someone you can trust and just build a relationship. If your paying new prices for used gear then yes you are getting ripped off. I would be glad to recommend to you a reputable gold partner if you email me off list. Brian On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Kaveh . wrote: Hello, I apologize if this is an unusual topic but I would like to know what this expert community thinks about this issue: We have noticed that a number of Cisco appliances we have recently purchased and paid (AS NEW), are being shipped as if they have been already used/refurbished. In other words, several times we have seen brand new Cisco hardware, out of the box, that has pre-existing configuration (Interfaces with Private IP addresses, static routes, etc ...) and in some cases even non-system files, like 'crashdump.txt' or additional IOS images. Most importantly our latest purchase; 2 'new' ASAs, contain a series of files named: FSCK.REC, FSCK0001.REC, FSCK0002.REC, etc ... . Based on some research it seems like that these files are 'recovery files' signaling bad/failing hard disks in these appliances. Anyone on thhis group has seen this before and if yes, are we supposed to blindly trust the vendor saying the hardware is new, safe and secure? The only way I can explain this is that the hardware has been refurbished or previously configured for reasons unknown to me. I think if customers pays for new hardware, they should get new hardware, even if refurbished hardware may be covered by Smartnet. Any thoughts or recommendations anyone? The last thing we want to do is to deploy faulty (or non secure) security appliances in production. :) Thank you Best regards The information in this email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the email and all of its attachments Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
Re: Legislation and its effects in our world
I agree - Although this isn't legal advice and I'm not a lawyer: It amends 18 U.S.C. §2703 which is entitled Required Disclosure of Customer Communications or Records which refers to providers, not home users... Better question: 1) Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications between end users and their providers so as to give rise to a 4th amendment issue? (Might have already been asked and answered...) On Feb 25, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Sean Hunter wrote: Sorry to intrude, but it is based on the reading of the law and at least according to ars technica's article ( http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/are-you-an-electronic-communication-service-provider.ars) that excludes home routers. That's not to say it couldn't be reinterpreted in the future. Also worth noting is that this is a Republican proposition and both sides still seem a bit bitter about the stimulus. ~Sean On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: If it's at all like the EU Date Retention provisions, it would be in the ISP, not the home router. The Danish want the moral equivalent of a netflow trace for each user (log of the kind of information netflow records for a session for each TCP/UDP/SCTP session the user initiates or terminates, produced on presentation of a warrant or subpoena), but the EU provisions are more application layer - when did the user sign on to the wireless network, and when did s/he sign off, to whom did they send emails via the ISP's servers, and so on? Without commenting on police states and such, instantiating legislation is required in each country signatory to the Cybercrime Treaty. Both major parties have been on deck during that discussion... On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:30 AM, David Stearns wrote: Hi Jim, Avoiding the politics of this issue, I suspect that many more home users will be affected than corporate or backbone admins. I already log all access to my wireless, though currently I don't keep outgoing access logs for that long. I suspect that if this were to become law, the logging mechanisms in the provided home wireless routers would need a revamp. Or at least their storage method would. -DS On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Jim Willis jim.h.wil...@gmail.com wrote: After having a brief conversation with a friend of mine over the weekend about this new proposed legislation I was horrified to find that I could not dig anything up on it in NANOG. Surely this sort of short minded legislation should have been a bit more thought through in its effects on those that would have to implement these changes. My major concern is not just for myself but for a much broader picture. Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/20/internet.records.bill/index.html I understand and agree that minors should be protected and I think child pornography is awful, however I think how the government is going about catching these criminals with this new legislation will not really be any more efficient than there current methods. Having a log of all IP's that come across my or anyone in America's home Wi-Fi for two years is not going to help police investigations but will cause me to have to go buy a more expensive router. So I'm just wondering, how would this legislation effect some of you on the NANOG list? -Jim
UDRP and ICANN / Input Requested
Hi folks, So I'm a network engineer and a law student and have decided to write a short note for one of our International Law classes based on UDRP and ICANN issues. I'd like to request input from the community as to what they see as the advantages and disadvantages for the UDRP process the way ICANN has it structured now. Any comments on how to improve the system are greatly appreciated. You can contact post to the list or contact me off list, either way my information is below. Ernesto M. Rubi Network Engineer - AMPATH Florida International University J.D. Candidate, 2010 Patent Agent - USPTO Reg. 63,074 FIU College of Law Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
143.228.0.0/16 and house.gov
Hi folks, just musing... From an ops perspective, wonder just how much traffic caused: This morning, our engineers sounded the alarms ... and we have installed a digital version of a traffic cop. We enacted stopgaps that we planned for last night. We had hoped we didn't have to. --Jeff Ventura, communications director for the House's chief administrator. (from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/congress.website/index.html) Don't .govs have enough b/w or at least ability to add b/w in order to satisfy their 'public outreach/information' role? (not a rhetorical question...hehe) It also seems to me that adding load balancing, firewall, throttling, etc methods for traffic shaping might actually make the problem worse by adding yet another layer(s) of hardware/software that may be prone to bottlenecking or overloading. whaddayathink? Ernie M. Rubi Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami
