There are major GSM-land wireless operators who provide service to devices like
Novatel's line of pocket-size WLAN hotspots.
You can just buy one and stick a SIM in it, but some of the ops offer them as
part of a business user package. I hope that means they get a proper IP or more
handed out
On 2/10/2011 1:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yeah, this is a sure path to having all of them say exactly that in
unison. Do you want to be right? Or would you prefer to be effective?
I think he wants to know which bogons will continue to be safe to use. :P
Jack
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:13:49 -0600
From: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com
With them not requiring a /8 in the first place (after CIDR); one
begins to wonder how much of their /8 allocations they actually
touched in any meaningful way.
i expect that after final depletion there will be some
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:13:49AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy
holder to provide
account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is
used, how many hosts),
and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be
On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy
holder to provide
account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is
used, how many hosts),
and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be returned.
On 2/10/2011 6:07 PM, John Curran wrote:
As I did not explain in advance to each to the parties that their responses
would be public, it would not be proper to publicly post the information.
Discussions with individual resource holders is treated as confidential
information.
Since you have
On 2/10/2011 8:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
As a side effect, it also kills any need of any proposals in various
institutions to reserve virgin space for utilization of LSN and such.
It might not be too far fetched that they might even endorse us reusing
their addressing with permission for
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Since you have gone through the process before. It would be nice (especially
concerning the DoD networks) if you could ask if they plan to keep them (not
monetize) and if you could make such a statement publicly.
I mention this, as DoD is
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made today
to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future and
result in the address space being returned to ARIN or transferred per current
policy.
An
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made
today
to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future
and
result in the address space being returned
On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made
today
to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
When there are X
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful
to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when
the USG can give assurances that
1) We won't route this, so use it
2) We won't be
On 2/10/2011 9:11 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list went to 3x
the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff this month. Why the
pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is groaning (including those that
truly despise the
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Thu Feb 10 20:35:01
2011
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:31:32 -0600
From: Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net
To: John Curran jcur...@arin.net
Subject: Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Cc: NANOG na...@merit.edu
On 2/10/2011
In message 78697910-f7a6-4d53-ad93-377fce660...@arin.net, John Curran writes:
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made=
today
to provide any assurance that
On 2/10/11 6:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
When there are X /8 networks
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
I'm curious: when HP acquired the assets of Compaq (or when Compaq
acquired the assets of Digital), is it your position that HP (or Compaq)
met the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly
from the IR. for 16.0.0.0/8?
since i
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules,
since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that they needed more
than a /16 and these were the days
On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules,
since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that
So, what exactly is broken and needs to be changed?
the policy making process. we have created a minor industry in telling
other people how to run their network.
how about no more ipv4 policy proposals and charge $1,000 to file an
ipv6 policy proposal?
randy
All this talk of ARIN's power and rights versus others is rather despairing. I
will now explain what we, a 'non-connectivity' ISP, are providing as useful
service.
Many of customers value anonymity/pseudonymity. We can provide these things.
Sure, there is a great potential for abuse, but we
On Feb 7, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
So, what exactly is broken and needs to be changed?
the policy making process. we have created a minor industry in telling
other people how to run their network.
how about no more ipv4 policy proposals and charge $1,000 to file an
ipv6
On Feb 6, 2011, at 2:16 PM, David Conrad wrote:
As you're aware, RFC 2050 was a group effort, so focusing on Jon's intent
seems questionable particularly given he sadly isn't around to provide
corrections.
While it may have been a group effort, Jon was the IANA.
With regards to specific
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:53 AM, John Curran wrote:
Your suggestion that existing loans may be impacted means to be ignored
for evaluating future allocations does seems a bit superfluous when taken
in full context, but obviously must be considered as you are one of the
authors.
I believe (it
it is both amusing and horrifying to watch two old dogs argue about
details of written rules as if common sense had died in october 1998.
what is good for the internet? what is simple? what is pragmatic? if
the answer is not simple and obvious, we should go break something else.
randy
On Feb 6, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
it is both amusing and horrifying to watch two old dogs argue about
details of written rules as if common sense had died in october 1998.
what is good for the internet? what is simple? what is pragmatic? if
the answer is not simple and obvious,
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 04:51:26PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
it is both amusing and horrifying to watch two old dogs argue about
details of written rules as if common sense had died in october 1998.
what is good for the internet? what is simple? what is pragmatic? if
the answer is not simple
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:54:42PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
[ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not providing
connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not
providing
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) blind-spots when it comes to
operational reality.
On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has (several)
the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW...
No reason to play coy... (ep.net)
--bill
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network
operator.
It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
Generally, I hear
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:24:01PM -0500, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network
operator.
It's dominated by the type of
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:18 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific.
http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf
but thats just me.
FYI - Also remember to consider the
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:27 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
...
It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates.
Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:01:00AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a
On 2/5/2011 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is
not granted by any RIR. It is granted by the people who run the routers
on that network. It is up to the operators of each individual network to
choose which network numbers they
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
On 2/5/2011 5:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
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.
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other
party? Contractual agreements of
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 5:06 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Your right to use a particular set of addresses
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.
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party?
Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to
In article 0d7e01cbc58a$340347a0$9c09d6e0$@net you write:
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
Here in the US, until there is statutory or case law, the question of
whether the people with legacy IP space assignments own that space is
entirely a matter of opinion. I
On 2/5/2011 5:25 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other
party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability
to reclaim or remove the reallocation.
If the user doesn't match what's in WHOIS, a lot of people will assume
Hi,
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:12:40 -0600
Aaron Wendel aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote:
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own?
Legacy space. The best example I can think of was Choopa's hijacking
of Erie Forge and Steel's legacy space. In this case, it was theft as
it
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
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Jack Bates wrote:
That's my point. If a legacy holder can update WHOIS, I presume they can also
just allocate the entire block to someone else. It would reflect that in
WHOIS, no one would consider it hijacked.
Does ARIN accept SWIP requests for IPs within legacy space
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the
policies
under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps?
Bill -
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation.
No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
...
The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently
reflect community standards in the broader sense, or inherently align with
the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to
operate in
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the power of
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data
contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient
and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine
it would be under alternative scenarios.
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote:
You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence
all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review
during the development process.
Thanks, John. I'm aware of the legal review, as well as the AC and board
gateways
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:40 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote:
RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framework.
Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN.
yup.. i was there when
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data
contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient
and makes the internet substantially more useful than
John,
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or
other
registries prior to the RIRs existance.
Is it your belief that Jon did not intend RFC 2050 to apply to the existing
allocations maintained by the three
On Feb 6, 2011, at 1:25 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Last I checked, the other four authors of RFC 2050 are still alive. Why not
ask them?
Bill indicated he was there when it was written in reference to Jon being an
author, and I was inquiring to whether he had any knowledge of Jon's intent
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
[ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread. Eventually,
holders of large legacy
John,
I would hope that if some ARIN policy is enacted there would be
some way to differentiate between organizations, like the one I belong
to, that have provided this kind of service to customers for a number of
years and organizations looking to take advantage of the new scarcity.
We
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
[ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread.
On 2/3/2011 9:32 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
John,
I would hope that if some ARIN policy is enacted there would be
some way to differentiate between organizations, like the one I belong
to, that have provided this kind of service to customers for a number
of years and organizations looking to
67 matches
Mail list logo
