On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:44:43AM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Hi,
As far as other ISPs helping out in the form of a letter to the court,
what do you need beyond a well, this is one more route we need to carry
that we shouldn't have to and How do I know how to properly report abuse
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:43:41AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hi,
As for the netblock: I just did a quick scan and here is what I found:
64.21.0.0/17 *[BGP/170] 3d 17:52:24, MED 64, localpref 210
AS path: 6320 8001 I
64.21.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 3d
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue (Can I take my cell
number with me?), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose
these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing
table efficiency.
No, this is not about taking a phone
Can we stop the analogies before they begin.
This is not the PSTN, comparing it to the PSTN appears to be where the court is
going wrong. This is the Internet.
It is internationally accepted policy that IP space is issued under a kind of
license that does not give ownership or
Johnny Eriksson wrote:
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue (Can I take my cell
number with me?), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose
these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing
table efficiency.
No, this is not
SB Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:34:03 +0200
SB From: Sabri Berisha
[ editted ]
SB As for the netblock: I just did a quick scan and here is what
SB I found:
SB I'm not sure wether or not 64.21.1.0/24 is the disputed
SB netblock, but this seems the only more specific without
SB AS8001 in the path.
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue (Can I take my cell
number with me?), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose
these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing
table efficiency.
No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone
moving to a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:47:42AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:44 AM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Of course, if you just happen to uphold INTERNET STANDARDS and only
accept routes from where they should originate, I'll buy you a drink
at the next NANOG for being
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Bob Snyder wrote:
Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who has
been enjoined from directly or indirectly preventing the customer from
using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability.
Of course, using this line of
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:38:12PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
What you really should try is to have ARIN provide friend of the court
brief and to explain to judge policies and rules in regards to ip space,
so you need to have your laywer get in touch with ARIN's lawyer. You can
Since all NSP's, ISP's, ALEC's, BLEC's and CLEC's
adhere to this accepted behavior and there are more
than 100 I blieve the court would be on the side of
the plaintiff under the 3rd amendment of the
constitution.
It is my understanding that doing otherwise will cause
an administrative nightmare
Worse case scenario. I think this is a bad precedent,
and poor judgement on the part of the defendent ISP,
for the small number block they have. The long term
potential harm could result in small ISP's not being
able to get number blocks thus making it more
difficult for small companies to
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone
actually think they would have a clue?
Here is the solution:
Black ball the /24 that the customer is taking with them. Black hole
any AS that announces that /24 'illegally'. The courts don't need to
follow the RFC or
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:45:40 -0400, Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone
actually think they would have a clue?
Here is the solution:
Perhaps before proposing a solution we should make sure that all the facts
are
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Matthew Crocker wrote:
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone
actually think they would have a clue?
Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available
at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that
On Jun 29, 2004, at 9:28 AM, Bob Snyder wrote:
Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who
has
been enjoined from directly or indirectly preventing the customer
from
using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available
at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that court made an
incorrect decision (it however should have been more clear enough on
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new
provider. I'd say it would be a violation of the agreement, but
I'm not a lawyer. Just a thought.
-M
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:15:33PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Black holing is a drastic step but I think decisive action needs to be
taken the Internet at large to protect the routing table. I know I
would *love* to gain ownership of some of my space I have from Sprint.
I'm too lazy
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
NAC had nothing to do with this. I have a long history in this and
other forums of promoting aggregation, with the notable exception of
multi-homed *TRANSIT CUSTOMERS* announcing routes via BGP. Suggesting
providers not accept prefixes which
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:27:43 -0400, Hannigan, Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space?
They would not be legaly obligated to do so by the current TRO. However
note this is supposedly a temporay use of IP space. Some
On Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 12:15:33PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
From my understanding the customer has their own IP space allocated by
ARIN and has had that space for over a year. They have already had
adequate time to transition to their own space. The Internet routing
table should not
The TRO reads to me along the lines that the customer wants protections from
increased charges and fees (anything above normal rates) while they are able to
move their equipment away from the co-located facilities. They do not wish to
incur expenses from NAC for access to the facilities. I see
The old legal trick of moving a case from Federal Court to a state court, is a
common legal tactic where friendly judges and judge shopping can take place (
Think the SCO action against IBM over the Unix/Linux debacle)
It's not a trick - the requirements for removal jurisdiction within the
If you read through
http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/plantiff-affidavit1.pdf you'll
see that NAC was blackmailing their client because they knew they
could not quickly move out
I think that argument is close to being bogus. The agreement doesn't
say that they have to be out in 45 days:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:27:43 -0400 Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new
provider. I'd say it would be a violation of the agreement, but
I'm not a lawyer.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Simon Lockhart wrote:
1) They say that they are hindered in their renumbering by not being able
to get a large enough block of addresses from ARIN (I forget the exact
wording). Does this mean that NAC were lax with their IP allocation policy
and let the customer have
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Richard Welty wrote:
i suspect this will turn out to be a non-issue, even of the new provider
routes the blocks and nac.net strictly obeys the requirements of the
TRO. the blocks broken out of the aggregates are probably (i
haven't looked) likely to be dropped by filters
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 01:14:05PM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:27:43 -0400 Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new
provider. I'd say
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, how do your filters tell the difference between these broken out
NAC routes through a new provider and multihomed customer routes with the
primary provider's connection down?
i've played this game from the
On Jun 29, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, how do your filters tell the difference between these broken out
NAC routes through a new provider and multihomed customer routes
with the
primary provider's
Mark,
I suspect they confused 'mega' with 'kilo'.
They mention 60 megawatts of power. It seems to me that the focus
shouldn't be on the easy task of renumbering a /24 in 85 days (is it
really just a /24?), but on moving the servers :-)
There is mention of increased power charges (up to
Alex,
Not being a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion, but my opinion
is: What state court issued the TRO. A TRO usually is a legal
technique to allow a condition to continue or not continue until a
court of competent jurisdiction can "review" the issues.
Since the addresses are not "owned"
quite frankly, looking at the TRO (thanks Richard for posting them here), UCI has
requested permission to use Prior UCI Addresses being part of NAC, until September
1st, 2004. i am failing to see the problem with this TRO, given that customer is
simply requesting relief guarantees that their
Hi James,
i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are
executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The
customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to
or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period
Hi,
Hi James,
i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing
unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there
contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty
of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or
unwilling to move out in the
joe mcguckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect they confused 'mega' with 'kilo'.
No, it's just the unit got mangled through sloppy usage. It was
written as 60 megawatt hours, i.e. 60,000 kWh of energy.
Any ISP that drew 60MW would probably be visible from space :)
--
PGP key ID E85DC776 -
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brad Passwaters wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:07:32 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi James,
i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are
executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty
Hi James,
i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are
executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The
customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to
or unwilling to move out in the
OK... I'll take the risk here...
These guys look to be gross address polluters -- Here's what I found:
1. Pegasus Web Technologies is listed as AS25653 (ARIN whois)
2. route-views.oregon-ix.net has the following to say about prefixes
with origin in AS25653 (only the first listed
These guys look to be gross address polluters -- Here's what I found:
* 64.21.40.0/24209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i
hmmm notice that all of these /24's are from ^_8001_ which peers with
route-views.oregon-ix.net which may from time to time include internal
iBGP
Of course, this is only possible with NAT at the customer edge.
Otherwise, it expands the size of the global routing system
exponentially.
- ferg
-- Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you can see, this TRO has widespread effects, and is something that
everyone in the industry could
BTW, in which state did this occur? Any additional pointers?
Thanks,
- ferg
-- Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please read -- this is lengthy, and important to the industry as a
whole. We ask for, and solicit, comments, letters of support, etc.,
for our position. We are looking for
The action is taking place in the Superior Court of State New Jersey.
Please contact me offlist if you are interested in helping further.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
BTW, in which state did this occur? Any additional pointers?
Thanks,
- ferg
-- Alex Rubenstein
AR Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:42:26 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time)
AR From: Alex Rubenstein
AR The action is taking place in the Superior Court of State New
AR Jersey.
If the Court considers it a state matter, and lacks the ability
to regulate interstate commerce, does that mean out-of-state ISPs
What you really should try is to have ARIN provide friend of the court
brief and to explain to judge policies and rules in regards to ip space,
so you need to have your laywer get in touch with ARIN's lawyer. You can
probably even force them to provide a statement or testimony (if they
don't
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:36 AM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
If the Court considers it a state matter, and lacks the ability
to regulate interstate commerce, does that mean out-of-state ISPs
recognizing ARIN's authority are not required to listen to the
announcements?
Who cares what the court thinks?
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
There has been a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by state court
that customers may take non-portable IP space with them when they leave
their provider. Important to realize: THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER HAS
BEEN GRANTED, AND IS
What about asking the police to check the judge for drug abuse? There's
more than enough evidence. Or argue that someone with an IQ below zero
should not be a judge, but this might fail as most of them are former
attorneys; I have more respect for common criminals than I have for most
attorneys:
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:44 AM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Of course, if you just happen to uphold INTERNET STANDARDS and only
accept routes from where they should originate, I'll buy you a drink
at the next NANOG for being a good netizien. :)
P.S. That was a serious offer to any and all ISPs.
Yes,
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue (Can I take my cell
number with me?), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose
these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing
table efficiency.
Friends of the court won't work here unless the technical
implications are presented in
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:48 AM, 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.
I wonder why ARIN, or even more importantly, ICANN has not jumped all
over this.
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.
We have been in contact with both ARIN and ICANN about this issue. We
encourage all network
53 matches
Mail list logo
