From lhoward at blackboard.com Tue Jun 1 12:23:42 2004 From: lhoward at blackboard.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:23:42 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Mury Johnson > Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:54 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 > > but I don't think the policy proposal in > it's current form is going to do a whole lot to encourage the > adoption of IPv6. It is not clear to me that the public has instructed ARIN to encourage the adoption of IPv6. My interpretation is that ARIN should be making IPv6 available, but not advocating. > If this policy proposal is adopted can it at least be done in > conjunction with a significant fee waiver? Say... the first 1000 > ARIN->LIR blocks are free for four years... The fees have already > been waived 2-3 times over the last four years. The fear that ARIN > is going to lose out on this big pot of money is unfounded. Would you, as an ISP, make a significant commitment to IPv6 if you knew it was "No payments until Memorial Day 2008?" I will confess to a certain fear as Treasurer that IPv6 will skyrocket one year, and our costs will skyrocket proportionately, and the public and/or the members will scream when we finally begin collecting the fees that have been waived for so long. > Or, how about every current customer that is already paying > ARIN fees for IPv4 can get a free IPv6 block? That is the current policy. IPv6 is free (fee is waived) for new users, and: IPv6 fees will not be charged to organizations that are current ARIN IPv4 subscription holders. http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html#ipv6_allocation It's either free or it's free. > Everyone is comfortable in their IPv4 world. There have been numerous > arguments that the technology will be developed and then the > demand will come. That hasn't happened either. How many years need to > go by before people are going to be willing to acknowledge that IPv6 needs > a good kick in the ass in ARINland? > > People have lost their tolerance for being the front runners > in hopes of cornering market share. The majority of LIRs are going > to wait until moving to IPv6 is either risk-free or until everyone else > is doing it and they need to. > > Put a little meat back into this policy change, or combine it with a > *real* waiver of fees. Just my thoughts... It seems to me that the problem is not on the supply side, but the demand side. Making it freer isn't going to make anybody want it more. If I'm wrong, and a few ISPs will say, "The only thing keeping me from deploying IPv6 is the fees I'll see next year" I'd discuss it with the Finance Committee and the Board. Since IPv6 is waived for IPv4 subscribers, that's a small constituency, though. Final note for us as we evaluate the comments received during Last Call: Should we interpret your comments as meaning you do not support policy proposal 2003-4 as currently written? Thanks, Lee Howard Treasurer, Board Member, Coffee Drinker > Mury > > > Quoting Member Services : > > > > > This is a last call for comment on this policy proposal. > > > > > > The Advisory Council has determined that there was > community support > > > for this policy proposal. The AC will review the comments > collected > > > during this last call period. > > > > > > Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will > > > expire at 23:59 EST on June 4, 2004. > > > > > > Member Services > > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > > ####################################### > > > > > > > > > Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes > > > > > > Author: ARIN Advisory Council > > > > > > Policy term: permanent > > > > > > Policy statement: > > > > > > A. 5.1.1(d), which currently reads: "d) have a plan for making at > > > least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years" > > > will have the timeframe changed from "two years" to "five years". > > > > > > B. 5.1.1(d) will have prepended "be an existing, known ISP in the > > > ARIN region or..." > > > > > > Rationale: > > > > > > These changes to the initial allocation criteria are to > acknowledge > > > the slow pace of IPv6 deployment in the ARIN region. Also > they further > > > stress the availability of IPv6 allocations to existing service > > > providers in the ARIN region. > > > > > > The following is section 5.1.1 as it currently is in the ARIN IPv6 > > > Address Allocation and Assignment Policy document: > > > > > > 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria > > > > > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > > organization must: > > > > > > a) be an LIR; > > > > > > b) not be an end site; > > > > > > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to > which it will > > > assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single > > > aggregated address allocation; and > > > > > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > > > organizations within two years. > > > > > > The ARIN IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy is > available > > > here: > > > > > > http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html > > > > > > Timetable for implementation: 30 days after ratification > > > > > > !DSPAM:40acf6a089461161118278! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From muryj at goldengate.net Tue Jun 1 15:41:43 2004 From: muryj at goldengate.net (Mury Johnson) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:41:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20040601141925.W44199@hail.goldengate.net> > It is not clear to me that the public has instructed ARIN to > encourage the adoption of IPv6. My interpretation is that ARIN > should be making IPv6 available, but not advocating. Okay, let's assume the public hasn't instructed ARIN to encourage IPv6 adoption. 1) Should ARIN take it's cue from the public? Or should ARIN, the AC, the BOD, and the ARIN members be making more informed decisions in regards to the types and amounts of IP allocations? Isn't this the madate of ARIN? 2) What is the objection to IPv6? Your comment hints at the "public" thinking moving to IPv6 is a bad idea. 3) You mention that it is your "interpretation". What is that an interpretation of? > Would you, as an ISP, make a significant commitment to IPv6 if you > knew it was "No payments until Memorial Day 2008?" I will confess > to a certain fear as Treasurer that IPv6 will skyrocket one year, > and our costs will skyrocket proportionately, and the public and/or > the members will scream when we finally begin collecting the fees > that have been waived for so long. You certainly can speak to this much more intelligently than I can. I do not understand the cost structure of ARIN. Do the costs really increase proportionately? I don't know. I have to admit I find it hard to believe, but I obviously do not know. So, as I mentioned before waive the fees for IPv6 as long as allocatee is paying for IPv4 blocks. I don't think the public can scream if they have been told in advance that the fees are waived until X date. > > Or, how about every current customer that is already paying > > ARIN fees for IPv4 can get a free IPv6 block? > > That is the current policy. IPv6 is free (fee is waived) for new > users, and: > > IPv6 fees will not be charged to organizations that are > current ARIN IPv4 subscription holders. > > http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html#ipv6_allocation > > It's either free or it's free. I understood that to mean they are free until the waiver is up. In other words, when the waiver is up the organization will have to pay for both IPv4 and IPv6 blocks. Am I incorrect? > It seems to me that the problem is not on the supply side, but the > demand side. Making it freer isn't going to make anybody want it > more. If I'm wrong, and a few ISPs will say, "The only thing keeping > me from deploying IPv6 is the fees I'll see next year" I'd > discuss it with the Finance Committee and the Board. Since IPv6 is > waived for IPv4 subscribers, that's a small constituency, though. I guess that gets right to the heart of the problem I tried to describe and it also goes against what you feared above. If IPv6 blocks are easy to obtain it *could* jumpstart the IPv6 deployment. And as you said above you fear that it could break ARIN's bank by having a rush on IPv6. I don't know. It sounds like you are not so sure either. Can you set aside X number of IPv6 blocks, so if there is a rush it is limited? > Final note for us as we evaluate the comments received during Last > Call: Should we interpret your comments as meaning you do not support > policy proposal 2003-4 as currently written? Tough question. To be honest I really don't care that much for myself or for my businesses. We are going to be fine either way. I'm just trying to contribute to what I think is a good idea. Do I support a waterdowned version? It's better than nothing, but if by supporting it as it stands does that sacrifice the chance to make further improvements down the road? I guess if my vote actually counted I'd abstain. When it comes down to it the ARIN region isn't ready to deal with IPv6. It's probably better to wait until there is some industry and consumer pressure to do something. The world seems to work better when it's under the gun, instead of trying to prepare for something. Mury From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Jun 1 16:59:03 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Last Call Petition Vote request on Policy Proposal 2003-9 (Whois Acceptalble Use) Message-ID: <200406012059.QAA04189@ops.arin.net> The ARIN Advisory Council's intent to abandon policy proposal 2003-9: WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) was made in an announcement to the Public Policy Mailing List on May 20, 2004. The author has initiated a last call petition. The deadline for issuing statements of support for this last call petition is 23:59 EST on Friday, June 11, 2004. The following three paragraphs are taken directly from the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process and explain the process of a last call petition. "In order for a "last call petition" to be considered successful, it must receive statements of support from at least ten different people who are from separate organizations. People who wish to document their support for the last call petition must do the following: 1) post a response to the Public Policy Mailing List stating their support for the proposal as is and 2) send email to petition at arin.net with full point of contact information, including their telephone number and organizational affiliation. The ARIN President will verify whether people from at least ten different organizations support the last call petitioned policy proposal as is. If the "last call petition" fails to receive the required support within ten days, the determination of the Advisory Council will stand and the policy proposal will be abandoned. If the "last call petition" receives the required support, an announcement will be made to the Public Policy Mailing List and the proposal will be forwarded directly to the Board of Trustees for final determination." The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process is located here: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html The full text of Policy Proposal 2003-9: WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is located here: http://www.arin.net/policy/2003_9.html Best Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From peterb at imagine.com Fri Jun 4 17:30:13 2004 From: peterb at imagine.com (Peter Bartram) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:30:13 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4 Message-ID: Hi, I've just joined the PPML list, so if I repeat some of what's been said, that's why. >"It's probably better to >wait until there is some industry and consumer pressure to do something. >The world seems to work better when it's under the gun, instead of trying >to prepare for something." > I disagree with Mury on this although he makes some other valid points. I think it's better to prepare for the migration to IPv6 here in the US; so what follows may seem radical. I agree with the IPv6 policy change revisions as currently outlined but would prefer to see a more moderate amount being charged for IPv6 allocations and a scheduled ramp up to get to that reduced pricing level. I think it would be better to waive the IPv6 fees for three years and then begin a ramp up in increments of $250.00. IE $0 in 2004-2005-2006 for a /32, $250 in $2007, $500 in $2008 AND $750 in $2009 and $1000 each year after that. This way there is an gradually increasing ISP customer base to justify the IPv6 yearly payments to ARIN. IPv4 addresses will be with us for some time and their fees plus the new fees should continue to fund the ARIN operational model. It is possible to build a ARIN IPv6 conversion financial model. Has anyone done this? I recommend a 11 year schedule. Why 11 years? To almost fully replace ARIN's yearly operational costs with yearly IPv6 allocation revenue requires a financial model with certain basic assumptions. The first "PUSH" assumption necessary in my mind is this: ARIN's revenue transition from the current almost 100% IPv4 revenue stream to a blended IPv4/IPv6 revenue stream has to match ISP allocations and other fees. So the IAB, ARIN, IETF et all must choose an "ISP recommended" IPv4 allocation end date to fully stop allocating IPv4 in the Internet and declared it's date to the world (IE: accomplish this by January 1st 2015 for example). To clarify:this means to stop allocating blocks, not stop routing IPv4. This vision statement of 2015 should provide more than enough time for ISPs and everyone else to have IPv6 fully deployed in their networks (with Dual Stack IPv4) and on the way to an all IPv6 Internet. Even if the date is pushed back as it approaches, the world will have a schedule that it can try to adhere to. True, politics may intervene. Remember Y2K, now Y15. If everyone has an allocation end date in mind, this will hasten this evolutionary process to IPv6 and we will avoid rushes in allocations. If you have an end date, everyone can plan to convert all aspects of the Internet in software and hardware, for example, businesses can rewrite software to work with IPv6 much like they did for the Y2K conversions. "IPv4 and IPv6 Ships in the Night" routing won't be needed any longer. Certainly a Y15 discussion should occur. By announcing an end date, the politics can begin. What... you might say? Announce the End of IPv4 so we can figure out how ARIN's revenue model will work? No...what I am saying is that a consensus of Internet authorities must lead and pick a date and get it in to the public's mind so we don't end up with the hovering IPv4 exhaustion problem, BGP routing table exhaustion problems, global network security issues, and a sudden expensive frantic pace to convert to IPv6 when a major disruptive technology occurs. ARIN's financial model is just one result of this decision. If you have an end date, most new ISP deployments will want to save the conversion cost later and will be more likely to deploy IPv6 in place of IPv4 or along side IPv4 with dual stack, sooner rather then later. They will certainly take a closer look at it because of it's eventual financial impact. The second assumption is that today the IPv6 address allocation process shouldn't add significantly to ARIN's operational costs unless a rush occurs (ARIN already has their current costs in line with operations). This may or may not be correct. The one thing that will generate a rush in IPv6 requests will be a "killer IPv6 application" like the world-wide-web was for IPv4. Even if an IPv6 "major app" appears that can generate a large demand for IPv6 addresses and technology, a far more gradual rollout of allocations in likely. The impact of very cheap bandwidth everywhere, Mobile IPv6 with 3G cellphones, laptops, and PDAs, fiber-to-home, and accelerating the Tier-1 provider cores with products like Cisco's new 90 terabit router with IPv6 hardware routing and Interdomain IPv6 SSM multicasting will bring this constant change. As more computer platforms move to 64 bit processors and get less expensive, this conversion probably won't have to wait the full 11 years. In Cisco's December 2003 "Internet Protocol Journal" , Geoff Huston of Telstra does an excellent job of statistically modeling the end of IPv4 and puts it out past 2025 at current rates. As he notes though, it only takes one disruptive technology to change these complex models quickly. It makes sense to prepare. With these two assumptions a PUSH-PULL combined ARIN-RIPE-APNIC etc. model is needed. The first step is to separate the IPv4 allocation Block billing from the IPv6 Block billing. Right now they are linked even though IPv6 is free to current ARIN IPv4 subscription holders. I agree with Huston's statement that "some would argue that the current situation underprices IPv4 at the expense of IPv6. No flat rates for new IPv4 blocks three years in the future. The second step is The PUSH: IPv4 allocation prices should be scheduled to rise over the next 11 years on a well advertised schedule with higher fees being charged for larger blocks and rising in later years as IPv4 address scarcity increases. The PULL: An ISP's fees should be permitted to go down as IPv4 allocations are returned and replaced with more abundant, less expensive IPv6 blocks; while still keeping ARIN in the black. This will have the effect of getting the bigger providers to convert sooner as they realize cost savings from the obvious shift to IPv6 allocations and enjoy IPv6's technological benefits. Or, as we have seen with "smokestack" industry in the US, some providers will stay with IPv4 and wait until the last minute or until the "IPv6 Major App" arrives. In either case, once the majority of larger providers start to shift and competitively promote new services based on IPv6 into their marketing messages, (such as the end to end IPv6 security and the overlooked ability in IPv6 of accurately locating the IP number of sources of spam), the smaller providers will be PULLED to follow suit. (Crossing Geoffrey Moore's Chasm). >From these above steps, a more precise forecast for the future can be developed with ARIN's separate IPv4 and IPv6 IP block pricing and financial/operational model. ARIN and ISPs can plan ahead. And the Internet can be guided forward with the excellent design of IPv6. Should a rush to allocate IPv6 develop, revenue from the blended sources of IPv4 and IPv6 can then be finely tuned to promote IPv6 growth over the legacy IPv4 and fees adjusted up or down to support the cost of ARIN's operations. RE: comments in previous email: >> It seems to me that the problem is not on the supply side, but the >> demand side. Making it freer isn't going to make anybody want it >> more. If I'm wrong, and a few ISPs will say, "The only thing keeping >> me from deploying IPv6 is the fees I'll see next year" I'd >> discuss it with the Finance Committee and the Board. Since IPv6 is >> waived for IPv4 subscribers, that's a small constituency, though. >> That is the current policy. IPv6 is free (fee is waived) for new >> users, and: >> >> IPv6 fees will not be charged to organizations that are >> current ARIN IPv4 subscription holders. >> >> http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html#ipv6_allocation >> >> It's either free or it's free. > >I understood that to mean they are free until the waiver is up. In other >words, when the waiver is up the organization will have to pay for both >IPv4 and IPv6 blocks. Am I incorrect? **************************** Finally, I would prefer to see that the billing part of the IPv6 policy be amended to include the ramp schedule above and to not exclude those that currently pay no IPv4 fee to ARIN (ISPs and others that have grandfathered IPv4 blocks, preARIN). Some of us would like to begin with IPv6, or would like to go direct to IPv6 and can't justify the payment of the implied $10,000 startup fee (2,500 x 4 years). Developing an IPv6 customer base will take time and presents a good opportunity for renewed, innovative growth. Working with a separate gradually increasing IPv6 yearly fee structure makes more sense even if that ramp starts in year two instead of year four for those who are not ARIN IPv4 subscription holders. I believe the above section of the policy should be amended to read: "IPv6 fees will not be charged to organizations that are current ARIN IPv4 subscription holders or that hold active ARIN IPv4 allocations which are in the IPv4 routing table". -- Peter From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Jun 14 14:55:59 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-9 - Last Call Petition - Unsuccessful Message-ID: <200406141855.OAA03832@ops.arin.net> RE: Author's last call petition of policy proposal '2003-9: WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)' - Petition Unsuccessful The ARIN Advisory Council posted their intent to abandon 2003-9 on May 20, 2004. The author elected to petition and posted to PPML on May 28, 2004, in an attempt to advance the proposal in the evaluation process. The deadline for submitting support for the petition ended on June 11, 2004. In accordance with the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the ARIN President will verify whether people from at least ten different organizations support a last call petitioned policy proposal. * If the "last call petition" fails to receive the required support within ten days, the determination of the Advisory Council will stand and the policy proposal will be abandoned. * If the "last call petition" receives the required support, an announcement will be made to the Public Policy Mailing List and the proposal will be forwarded directly to the Board of Trustees for final determination. Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO, has determined that the last call petition of policy proposal, 2003-9: WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), was unsuccessful. Policy proposal 2003-9 is abandoned. Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Jun 14 16:54:51 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:54:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-9 - Last Call Petition - Unsuccessful Message-ID: <200406142054.QAA02574@ops.arin.net> Resending this email with the URL to the policy proposal: http://www.arin.net/policy/2003_9.html RE: Author's last call petition of policy proposal '2003-9: WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)' - Petition Unsuccessful The ARIN Advisory Council posted their intent to abandon 2003-9 on May 20, 2004. The author elected to petition and posted to PPML on May 28, 2004, in an attempt to advance the proposal in the evaluation process. The deadline for submitting support for the petition ended on Friday, June 11, 2004. In accordance with the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the ARIN President will verify whether people from at least ten different organizations support a last call petitioned policy proposal. * If the "last call petition" fails to receive the required support within ten days, the determination of the Advisory Council will stand and the policy proposal will be abandoned. * If the "last call petition" receives the required support, an announcement will be made to the Public Policy Mailing List and the proposal will be forwarded directly to the Board of Trustees for final determination. Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO, has determined that the last call petition of policy proposal, 2003-9: WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), was unsuccessful. Policy proposal 2003-9 is abandoned. Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Jun 22 04:41:19 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:41:19 +0200 Subject: [ppml] Guidelines for ISPs on IPv6 Assignment to Customers Message-ID: <056c01c45834$b16868d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> Hi all, I guess this is interesting for this group ... Guidelines for ISPs on IPv6 Assignment to Customers (http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=604) I drafted this document during the last RIPE meeting and asked for inputs, but nothing .... Inputs still welcome ! Regards, Jordi ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From jlewis at lewis.org Wed Jun 23 14:24:47 2004 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:24:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests Message-ID: ARIN seems to be having trouble keeping whois.arin.net working. Anyone know what's wrong and if there's an ETR this time? I found the form to request bulk whois data on the ARIN web site. I'm curious how free ARIN is with this. Is the fact that I'd like to be able to find out who the IPs abusing my netowrk belong to regardless of the current state of whois.arin.net a good enough reason? I got paged at 2am last night to deal with a DoS attack and found I was unable to use whois.arin.net to find out who the flooding IPs or their AS's belonged to. I see it's either still or again down now, 12 hours later. What format is the bulk whois data made available in? How is it kept in sync? Would I have to periodically download the whole thing, or is there an rsync server? Does ARIN make the whois daemon they use available (for use with the bulk data)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Jun 23 15:48:54 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Jon Lewis wrote: > ARIN seems to be having trouble keeping whois.arin.net working. > Anyone know what's wrong and if there's an ETR this time? Jon, As you may be aware, WHOIS services were being restored as you were sending this message. The outages on Saturday, last night, and the short one today were all hardware related. The hardware has been replaced during the most recent outage. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From leslien at arin.net Wed Jun 23 15:57:39 2004 From: leslien at arin.net (Leslie Nobile) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:57:39 -0400 Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200406231957.PAA11182@ops.arin.net> Hi Jon- Acceptable use of ARIN WHOIS data is generally defined as being for Internet operational or technical research purposes pertaining to Internet operations only. Using the ARIN WHOIS data for advertising, direct marketing or marketing research is strictly forbidden. The bulk WHOIS data is provided in a compressed flat file, accessed via ftp and updated daily. The file is about 80 megabytes. The ARIN whois daemon is not available to the general public. Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:25 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests ARIN seems to be having trouble keeping whois.arin.net working. Anyone know what's wrong and if there's an ETR this time? I found the form to request bulk whois data on the ARIN web site. I'm curious how free ARIN is with this. Is the fact that I'd like to be able to find out who the IPs abusing my netowrk belong to regardless of the current state of whois.arin.net a good enough reason? I got paged at 2am last night to deal with a DoS attack and found I was unable to use whois.arin.net to find out who the flooding IPs or their AS's belonged to. I see it's either still or again down now, 12 hours later. What format is the bulk whois data made available in? How is it kept in sync? Would I have to periodically download the whole thing, or is there an rsync server? Does ARIN make the whois daemon they use available (for use with the bulk data)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From jlewis at lewis.org Wed Jun 23 16:11:22 2004 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: <200406231957.PAA11182@ops.arin.net> References: <200406231957.PAA11182@ops.arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Leslie Nobile wrote: > Acceptable use of ARIN WHOIS data is generally defined as being for Internet > operational or technical research purposes pertaining to Internet operations > only. That would be my intent. > The bulk WHOIS data is provided in a compressed flat file, accessed via ftp > and updated daily. The file is about 80 megabytes. The ARIN whois daemon > is not available to the general public. So there are no provisions to easily or efficiently setup mirrors of whois.arin.net? Hmm...maybe a good cause for a policy proposal. Is the bulk data published as snapshots and diffs, or just a new ~80mb snapshot each day? Do you have any idea what's caused the two recent whois.arin.net outages? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From jlewis at lewis.org Wed Jun 23 16:17:10 2004 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Member Services wrote: > As you may be aware, WHOIS services were being restored as you were > sending this message. The outages on Saturday, last night, and the short > one today were all hardware related. The hardware has been replaced during > the most recent outage. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have > caused. I wasn't aware of that. Does that mean the problems should all be behind us, assuming the new hardware is stable? Perhaps ARIN could put up an "ARIN network status" link on the top menu section of the web site so that such outages (planned or otherwise) would be more easily/automatically explained by the web site. Otherwise, each time there's an outage, first I have to wonder, have I been blocked? Has my whole network been blocked (less likely), has this other network where I have an account also been blocked (not at all likely)...must be an outage. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From leslien at arin.net Wed Jun 23 16:19:04 2004 From: leslien at arin.net (Leslie Nobile) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:19:04 -0400 Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200406232019.QAA16742@ops.arin.net> No, there are no provisions to setup mirrors of whois.arin.net. And yes, the bulk data is published as a new ~80mb snapshot each day. Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:11 PM To: Leslie Nobile Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Leslie Nobile wrote: > Acceptable use of ARIN WHOIS data is generally defined as being for Internet > operational or technical research purposes pertaining to Internet operations > only. That would be my intent. > The bulk WHOIS data is provided in a compressed flat file, accessed via ftp > and updated daily. The file is about 80 megabytes. The ARIN whois daemon > is not available to the general public. So there are no provisions to easily or efficiently setup mirrors of whois.arin.net? Hmm...maybe a good cause for a policy proposal. Is the bulk data published as snapshots and diffs, or just a new ~80mb snapshot each day? Do you have any idea what's caused the two recent whois.arin.net outages? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Thu Jun 24 05:40:48 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:40:48 +0100 Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: <200406231957.PAA11182@ops.arin.net> Message-ID: > The bulk WHOIS data is provided in a compressed flat file, accessed via ftp > and updated daily. The file is about 80 megabytes. The ARIN whois daemon > is not available to the general public. May I suggest that you look into offering it as an uncompressed flat file using rsync only. If you read the technical report http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/documentation.html then you will see why this will consume, much, much less bandwidth than supplying a compressed file or using ftp. Only changed data will be transferred. Rsync is available for Windows as well as UNIX and Macintosh --Michael Dillon From jlewis at lewis.org Thu Jun 24 07:52:26 2004 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > May I suggest that you look into offering it as an uncompressed > flat file using rsync only. If you read the technical report > http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/documentation.html > then you will see why this will consume, much, much less > bandwidth than supplying a compressed file or using > ftp. Only changed data will be transferred. I kind of already implied all that. Even if they are (for whatever reason) totally against installing a new protocol (there have been some rsyncd security issues recently), publishing the data as both 80mb file and daily diffs is a no brainer and would accomplish much of the bandwidth savings of rsync...just requiring a little more work at the remote ends to download the right diff(s) and apply them. > Rsync is available for Windows as well as UNIX and Macintosh Diff and patch are also available for these platforms. I wonder though, are there any compelling reasons for ARIN not to release bulk whois data in more useful formats, such as might be more directly usable to setup local whois mirrors? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From bicknell at ufp.org Thu Jun 24 08:09:14 2004 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:09:14 -0400 Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: <200406232019.QAA16742@ops.arin.net> References: <200406232019.QAA16742@ops.arin.net> Message-ID: <20040624120914.GA58511@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 04:19:04PM -0400, Leslie Nobile wrote: > No, there are no provisions to setup mirrors of whois.arin.net. And yes, At the risk of opening a huge can of worms..... Perhaps the RIR's could help each other by trading backup hosting for whois services. That is, ARIN would set up a server to mirror whois.ripe.net, whois.apnic.net, whois.lacnic.net, etc. RIPE would do the same, and soforth. It would provide an in-region mirror of worldwide data, provide very good geographic diversity, and I think the RIR's are already working on moving data between them as they do things like clean up the legacy space. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From adb at onramp.ca Thu Jun 24 08:38:45 2004 From: adb at onramp.ca (Anthony DeBoer) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:38:45 -0400 Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: <20040624120914.GA58511@ussenterprise.ufp.org>; from bicknell@ufp.org on Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:09:14AM -0400 References: <200406232019.QAA16742@ops.arin.net> <20040624120914.GA58511@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20040624083845.R22299@onramp.ca> Leo Bicknell wrote: > Perhaps the RIR's could help each other by trading backup hosting > for whois services. That is, ARIN would set up a server to mirror > whois.ripe.net, whois.apnic.net, whois.lacnic.net, etc. RIPE would > do the same, and soforth. And carrying that thought further, what about doing it in an integrated manner? That is, if you ask whois.arin.net about an address that was delegated to RIPE, getting the whois.ripe.net answers back instead of the ARIN go-ask-RIPE record. Just a thought. -- Anthony DeBoer Onramp Technical Support From william at elan.net Thu Jun 24 08:41:59 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] whois.arin.net and bulk requests In-Reply-To: <20040624120914.GA58511@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 04:19:04PM -0400, Leslie Nobile wrote: > > No, there are no provisions to setup mirrors of whois.arin.net. And yes, > > At the risk of opening a huge can of worms..... > > Perhaps the RIR's could help each other by trading backup hosting > for whois services. That is, ARIN would set up a server to mirror > whois.ripe.net, whois.apnic.net, whois.lacnic.net, etc. RIPE would > do the same, and soforth. While its pretty easy for ARIN to setup servers to mirror APNIC and RIPE, the reverse is not so easy because of custom whois database software that ARIN is using, that I believe would require entire system supplied and maintained by ARIN (although possibly other RIR could volunteeer to supply bandwidth and colocation while letting ARIN maintain the system). Of course, all that would not be a problem if ARIN was actually using same whois server software and whois data format as other RIRs and I note that ALL other RIRs - that is RIPE, APNIC and LACNIC (and they will soon be joined by AFRINIC) are using same whois software (rpsl ripe whois server based) and format (some fields are not used or named differently by certain RIRs, but in general its all the same) and that software supports mirroring and other functions already discussed and requested here. I also would note that data components and fields in latest version of ripe whois server (that is the one that includes org) are almost same as what ARIN uses, although ARIN has more consistancy about parent->child relantionship between certain data components, but that can easily be enforced at the data entry. P.S. What happened to ARIN maintaining off-site backup whois server that it mentioned at least once before? Is it used only for "scheduled" outages? If so, solution is to setup monitoring system that will check for "unscheduled" outages and change routing or dns to backup site automaticly if they happen. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From stacy at hilander.com Mon Jun 28 10:29:47 2004 From: stacy at hilander.com (stacy at hilander.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:29:47 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Guidelines for ISPs on IPv6 Assignment to Customers In-Reply-To: <056c01c45834$b16868d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> References: <056c01c45834$b16868d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <1088432987.40e02b5b8d007@www.hilander.com> Strong work, Jordi! That really sums it up well! Thanks for taking the time to do that! /Stacy Taylor Quoting JORDI PALET MARTINEZ : > Hi all, > > I guess this is interesting for this group ... Guidelines for ISPs on IPv6 > Assignment to Customers > (http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=604) > > I drafted this document during the last RIPE meeting and asked for inputs, > but nothing .... > > Inputs still welcome ! > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > ********************************** > Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit > Presentations and videos on line at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > > !DSPAM:40d7f503159581079018031! > > > From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Jun 28 12:14:56 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Emergency Electrical Work This Evening Message-ID: In preparation for emergency electrical work being done this evening, our office will close today at 5PM EDT. The utility repair work will take place from 7PM until approximately 11PM EDT. During this time, ARIN will be operating under its backup power system and expects no interruption of services with the exception of the credit card payment processing system and existing v6 services. Periodic updates will be sent out as the repair work progresses. We apologize for any inconvenience this causes to our Members and all in the Internet community. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Jun 29 00:06:58 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:06:58 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Emergency Eletrical Work Complete Message-ID: <20040629040658.GB3513@arin.net> The emergency electrical work has been successfully completed. Power has been completely restored to our facility and all services are operating as usual. We appreciate your patience in dealing with these circumstances. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Tue Jun 29 05:58:38 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:58:38 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) Message-ID: Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be considering whether or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state court? ----- Forwarded by Michael Dillon/ENG/INTL/RADIANZ on 29/06/2004 10:57 ----- owner-nanog at merit.edu wrote on 29/06/2004 04:24:27: > > > 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 people to take a position on this, and come > forward, perhaps even to provide an affidavit or certification. Something > along the lines of a 'friend of the court' brief, or even comments as to > why we are wrong. > > Read on. > > 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 CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD > HAPPEN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED. THERE IS AN ABILITY TO > DISSOLVE IT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. > > This is a matter is of great importance to the entire Internet community. > This type of precedent is very dangerous. If this ruling is upheld it has > the potential to disrupt routing throughout the Internet, and change > practices of business for any Internet Service Provider. > > In the TRO, the specific language that is enforced is as follows: > > "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 April 2003 > 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 or > access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, (c) provide CUSTOMER > with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) within seven (7) days of CUSTOMER's > written request for same to the email address/ticket system > (network at nac.net), and (d) permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER > Addresses to any carrier, IP transit or IP peering network." > > We believe this order to be in direct violation of ARIN policy and the > standard contract that is signed by every entity that is given an > allocation of IP space. The ARIN contract strictly states that the IP > space is NOT property of the ISP and can not be sold or transferred. The > IP blocks in question in this case are very clearly defined as > non-portable space by ARIN. > > Section 9 of ARIN's standard Service Agreement clearly states: > > "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." > > [ Full ARIN agreement http://www.arin.net/library/agreements/rsa.pdf ] > > Further, it is important to realize that this CUSTOMER has already gotten > allocations from ARIN over 15 months ago, and has chosen not to renumber > out of NAC IP space. They have asserted that ARIN did not supply them with > IP space fast enough to allow them to renumber. Since they have gotten > allocations from ARIN, we are confident they have signed ARIN's RSA as > well, and are aware of the above point (9). > > If this ruling stands and a new precedent is set, any customer of any > carrier would be allowed to take their IP space with them when they leave > just because it is not convenient for them to renumber. That could be a > single static IP address for a dial-up customer or many thousands of > addresses for a web hosting company. This could mean that if you want to > revoke the address space of a spammer customer, that the court could allow > the customer to simply take the space with them and deny you as the > carrier (and ARIN) their rights to control the space as you (and ARIN) see > fit. > > REMEMBER, THE INTERNET USED TO BE BASED UPON PORTABLE IP SPACE, AND IS NO > LONGER FOR SEVERAL TECHNICAL REASONS. > > It is important to understand that this is not a situation where a > customer is being forced to leave on short notice. NAC has not revoked the > IP space of the customer. This is a situation where a customer is > exercising their option not to renew their services and is leaving > voluntarily. In addition the customer in question was granted their own IP > space OVER A YEAR AGO and simply chose not to renumber their entire > network. The key issue is that they want to take the space with them AFTER > they leave NAC and are NO LONGER A CUSTOMER. > > Why this TRO is bad for the Internet: > > 1. It undermines ARIN's entire contract and authority to assign IP space. > > 2. It means that once IP addresses have been assigned / SWIP'ed to a > Customer that the Customer may now have the right to continued use of > those addresses even if the customer leaves the service of the Provider. > In other words the right of the Provider to maintain control and use of > the address space assigned to his network, is to now be subject to the > Customer going to a State Court and getting an Order to take such space > with them. Instead of the Addresses being allocated by delegated > authority of the Department of Commerce and ARIN they become useable by > anyone who convinces a Judge that they have a need for the addresses. > > It appears the Customer can keep the addresses for as long as it pleases > the State Court and as long as the Customer can judicially hijack the > space. > > The tragic part of this is that the Court which issues the Order does not > even have to hear expert testimony. So the Court can issue such Order > without fully understanding the Internet Technology that is affected or > the havoc it could cause in National and International Communications. > > 3. Significant potential for routing havoc as pieces of non-portable > blocks of space are no longer controlled by the entity that has the > assignment from ARIN, but by the end user customer for as long as that > customer wants to use them. If the customer was causing a routing problem > by improper routing confirmation the carrier would lose their authority to > revoke or limit the use of the IP space to protect the stability of the > carrier's network. In other words, court-compelled LOAs are a 'bad thing.' > > 4. Because the IP space is still assigned to the carrier, the carrier > would potentially be responsible to continue to respond to all SPAM and > hacking complaints, DMCA violations, and all other forms of abuse. All of > this abuse responsibility and liability would continue with no recourse to > revoke or limit IP space of that customer and no ability to receive > financial compensation for that task. This is not a theoretical problem, > in the case of this customer we have received numerous abuse complaints > throughout their history as a customer. While they have generally resolved > these issues, it still is a real cost for us to handle. This is something > that has the potential to create a massive burden for the carrier. > > 5. It would fundamentally change the long standing policy that the carrier > that has the IP space assigned to them has the right to assign and revoke > the IP space as it sees fit, and that the customer has no rights to the IP > space other then the rights that the carrier gives them (through a > delegation from ARIN). > > 6. If the customer is being DDOSed, or attacked (perhaps they may > even instigate it purposely), and then stops announcing the more > specific routes, the attack when then flow to us, the innocent > bystander. Essentially, the customer could cause a DDOS for which I will > then be billed for. This type of thing has been known to happen in the > past (but not with this CUSTOMER). > > As you can see, this TRO has widespread effects, and is something that > everyone in the industry could be affected by. If this precedent is set, > you will soon have everyone acting as if IP's are property, and something > that they are entitled to. I ask for input from everyone in the community > on this. We don't think we're crazy, but want to make sure. From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Tue Jun 29 06:02:37 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:02:37 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be > considering whether > or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state > court? Oops. That should be Superior Court of State New Jersey. From plzak at arin.net Tue Jun 29 06:27:31 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:27:31 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200406291027.GAA18278@ops.arin.net> The ARIN General Counsel is and has been aware of this. Appropriate measures are being considered and will be pursued. The actions taken by ARIN in this regard will be a matter of the appropriate public record. Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Michael.Dillon at radianz.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:03 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court > says yes!) > > > Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be > > considering whether > > or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state > > court? > > Oops. That should be Superior Court of State New Jersey. From cscott at gaslightmedia.com Tue Jun 29 09:24:24 2004 From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: <200406291027.GAA18278@ops.arin.net> Message-ID: Ray: Question? Is this a ruling affecting the provider only, or was ARIN a party in this legal action? In otherwords, is this only binding on the provider or is it also binding on ARIN. It would seem that if ARIN was not a party in the case, that ARIN may not be bound by the decision. If so, would ARIN still be able to enforce the non-portability of address space, potentially leaving the party who won portability with an empty victory? Can someone provide a link to the full text of the decision? Chuck On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ray Plzak wrote: > The ARIN General Counsel is and has been aware of this. Appropriate > measures are being considered and will be pursued. The actions taken by > ARIN in this regard will be a matter of the appropriate public record. > > Raymond A. Plzak > President & CEO > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of > > Michael.Dillon at radianz.com > > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:03 AM > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court > > says yes!) > > > > > Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be > > > considering whether > > > or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state > > > court? > > > > Oops. That should be Superior Court of State New Jersey. > > From jlewis at lewis.org Tue Jun 29 11:02:45 2004 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Fwd: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) Message-ID: I don't know if ARIN can comment on this, but people are awfully curious if ARIN will get involved in trying to get this case either thrown out or decided in favor of nac.net and ARIN policies. If the plantiff wins this case, that would set a precedent that all IP space (even PA) is portable. Copies of the court papers can be seen at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alex Rubenstein Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:24:54 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) To: list at inet-access.net 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 people to take a position on this, and come forward, perhaps even to provide an affidavit or certification. Something along the lines of a 'friend of the court' brief, or even comments as to why we are wrong. Read on. 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 CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED. THERE IS AN ABILITY TO DISSOLVE IT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. This is a matter is of great importance to the entire Internet community. This type of precedent is very dangerous. If this ruling is upheld it has the potential to disrupt routing throughout the Internet, and change practices of business for any Internet Service Provider. In the TRO, the specific language that is enforced is as follows: "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 April 2003 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 or access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, (c) provide CUSTOMER with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) within seven (7) days of CUSTOMER's written request for same to the email address/ticket system (network at nac.net), and (d) permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses to any carrier, IP transit or IP peering network." We believe this order to be in direct violation of ARIN policy and the standard contract that is signed by every entity that is given an allocation of IP space. The ARIN contract strictly states that the IP space is NOT property of the ISP and can not be sold or transferred. The IP blocks in question in this case are very clearly defined as non-portable space by ARIN. Section 9 of ARIN's standard Service Agreement clearly states: "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." [ Full ARIN agreement http://www.arin.net/library/agreements/rsa.pdf ] Further, it is important to realize that this CUSTOMER has already gotten allocations from ARIN over 15 months ago, and has chosen not to renumber out of NAC IP space. They have asserted that ARIN did not supply them with IP space fast enough to allow them to renumber. Since they have gotten allocations from ARIN, we are confident they have signed ARIN's RSA as well, and are aware of the above point (9). If this ruling stands and a new precedent is set, any customer of any carrier would be allowed to take their IP space with them when they leave just because it is not convenient for them to renumber. That could be a single static IP address for a dial-up customer or many thousands of addresses for a web hosting company. This could mean that if you want to revoke the address space of a spammer customer, that the court could allow the customer to simply take the space with them and deny you as the carrier (and ARIN) their rights to control the space as you (and ARIN) see fit. REMEMBER, THE INTERNET USED TO BE BASED UPON PORTABLE IP SPACE, AND IS NO LONGER FOR SEVERAL TECHNICAL REASONS. It is important to understand that this is not a situation where a customer is being forced to leave on short notice. NAC has not revoked the IP space of the customer. This is a situation where a customer is exercising their option not to renew their services and is leaving voluntarily. In addition the customer in question was granted their own IP space OVER A YEAR AGO and simply chose not to renumber their entire network. The key issue is that they want to take the space with them AFTER they leave NAC and are NO LONGER A CUSTOMER. Why this TRO is bad for the Internet: 1. It undermines ARIN's entire contract and authority to assign IP space. 2. It means that once IP addresses have been assigned / SWIP'ed to a Customer that the Customer may now have the right to continued use of those addresses even if the customer leaves the service of the Provider. In other words the right of the Provider to maintain control and use of the address space assigned to his network, is to now be subject to the Customer going to a State Court and getting an Order to take such space with them. Instead of the Addresses being allocated by delegated authority of the Department of Commerce and ARIN they become useable by anyone who convinces a Judge that they have a need for the addresses. It appears the Customer can keep the addresses for as long as it pleases the State Court and as long as the Customer can judicially hijack the space. The tragic part of this is that the Court which issues the Order does not even have to hear expert testimony. So the Court can issue such Order without fully understanding the Internet Technology that is affected or the havoc it could cause in National and International Communications. 3. Significant potential for routing havoc as pieces of non-portable blocks of space are no longer controlled by the entity that has the assignment from ARIN, but by the end user customer for as long as that customer wants to use them. If the customer was causing a routing problem by improper routing confirmation the carrier would lose their authority to revoke or limit the use of the IP space to protect the stability of the carrier's network. In other words, court-compelled LOAs are a 'bad thing.' 4. Because the IP space is still assigned to the carrier, the carrier would potentially be responsible to continue to respond to all SPAM and hacking complaints, DMCA violations, and all other forms of abuse. All of this abuse responsibility and liability would continue with no recourse to revoke or limit IP space of that customer and no ability to receive financial compensation for that task. This is not a theoretical problem, in the case of this customer we have received numerous abuse complaints throughout their history as a customer. While they have generally resolved these issues, it still is a real cost for us to handle. This is something that has the potential to create a massive burden for the carrier. 5. It would fundamentally change the long standing policy that the carrier that has the IP space assigned to them has the right to assign and revoke the IP space as it sees fit, and that the customer has no rights to the IP space other then the rights that the carrier gives them (through a delegation from ARIN). 6. If the customer is being DDOSed, or attacked (perhaps they may even instigate it purposely), and then stops announcing the more specific routes, the attack when then flow to us, the innocent bystander. Essentially, the customer could cause a DDOS for which I will then be billed for. This type of thing has been known to happen in the past (but not with this CUSTOMER). As you can see, this TRO has widespread effects, and is something that everyone in the industry could be affected by. If this precedent is set, you will soon have everyone acting as if IP's are property, and something that they are entitled to. I ask for input from everyone in the community on this. We don't think we're crazy, but want to make sure. -- Jon Lewis Senior Network Engineer Atlantic Net http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key From plzak at arin.net Tue Jun 29 11:22:40 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:22:40 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200406291522.LAA00664@ops.arin.net> 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Charles Scott > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:24 AM > To: Ray Plzak > Cc: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court > says yes!) > > > Ray: > Question? Is this a ruling affecting the provider only, or was ARIN a > party in this legal action? In otherwords, is this only binding on the > provider or is it also binding on ARIN. It would seem that if ARIN was not > a party in the case, that ARIN may not be bound by the decision. If so, > would ARIN still be able to enforce the non-portability of address space, > potentially leaving the party who won portability with an empty victory? > Can someone provide a link to the full text of the decision? > > Chuck > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ray Plzak wrote: > > > The ARIN General Counsel is and has been aware of this. Appropriate > > measures are being considered and will be pursued. The actions taken by > > ARIN in this regard will be a matter of the appropriate public record. > > > > Raymond A. Plzak > > President & CEO > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of > > > Michael.Dillon at radianz.com > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:03 AM > > > To: ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? > (Court > > > says yes!) > > > > > > > Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be > > > > considering whether > > > > or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state > > > > court? > > > > > > Oops. That should be Superior Court of State New Jersey. > > > > From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Jun 29 13:05:51 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:05:51 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D26276FC@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Has anyone else seen this? Does anyone know if ARIN will be commenting on this court ruling? Marla Azinger IP Analyst Electric Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: Alex Rubenstein [mailto:alex at nac.net] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:24 PM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) 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 people to take a position on this, and come forward, perhaps even to provide an affidavit or certification. Something along the lines of a 'friend of the court' brief, or even comments as to why we are wrong. Read on. 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 CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED. THERE IS AN ABILITY TO DISSOLVE IT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. This is a matter is of great importance to the entire Internet community. This type of precedent is very dangerous. If this ruling is upheld it has the potential to disrupt routing throughout the Internet, and change practices of business for any Internet Service Provider. In the TRO, the specific language that is enforced is as follows: "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 April 2003 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 or access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, (c) provide CUSTOMER with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) within seven (7) days of CUSTOMER's written request for same to the email address/ticket system (network at nac.net), and (d) permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses to any carrier, IP transit or IP peering network." We believe this order to be in direct violation of ARIN policy and the standard contract that is signed by every entity that is given an allocation of IP space. The ARIN contract strictly states that the IP space is NOT property of the ISP and can not be sold or transferred. The IP blocks in question in this case are very clearly defined as non-portable space by ARIN. Section 9 of ARIN's standard Service Agreement clearly states: "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." [ Full ARIN agreement http://www.arin.net/library/agreements/rsa.pdf ] Further, it is important to realize that this CUSTOMER has already gotten allocations from ARIN over 15 months ago, and has chosen not to renumber out of NAC IP space. They have asserted that ARIN did not supply them with IP space fast enough to allow them to renumber. Since they have gotten allocations from ARIN, we are confident they have signed ARIN's RSA as well, and are aware of the above point (9). If this ruling stands and a new precedent is set, any customer of any carrier would be allowed to take their IP space with them when they leave just because it is not convenient for them to renumber. That could be a single static IP address for a dial-up customer or many thousands of addresses for a web hosting company. This could mean that if you want to revoke the address space of a spammer customer, that the court could allow the customer to simply take the space with them and deny you as the carrier (and ARIN) their rights to control the space as you (and ARIN) see fit. REMEMBER, THE INTERNET USED TO BE BASED UPON PORTABLE IP SPACE, AND IS NO LONGER FOR SEVERAL TECHNICAL REASONS. It is important to understand that this is not a situation where a customer is being forced to leave on short notice. NAC has not revoked the IP space of the customer. This is a situation where a customer is exercising their option not to renew their services and is leaving voluntarily. In addition the customer in question was granted their own IP space OVER A YEAR AGO and simply chose not to renumber their entire network. The key issue is that they want to take the space with them AFTER they leave NAC and are NO LONGER A CUSTOMER. Why this TRO is bad for the Internet: 1. It undermines ARIN's entire contract and authority to assign IP space. 2. It means that once IP addresses have been assigned / SWIP'ed to a Customer that the Customer may now have the right to continued use of those addresses even if the customer leaves the service of the Provider. In other words the right of the Provider to maintain control and use of the address space assigned to his network, is to now be subject to the Customer going to a State Court and getting an Order to take such space with them. Instead of the Addresses being allocated by delegated authority of the Department of Commerce and ARIN they become useable by anyone who convinces a Judge that they have a need for the addresses. It appears the Customer can keep the addresses for as long as it pleases the State Court and as long as the Customer can judicially hijack the space. The tragic part of this is that the Court which issues the Order does not even have to hear expert testimony. So the Court can issue such Order without fully understanding the Internet Technology that is affected or the havoc it could cause in National and International Communications. 3. Significant potential for routing havoc as pieces of non-portable blocks of space are no longer controlled by the entity that has the assignment from ARIN, but by the end user customer for as long as that customer wants to use them. If the customer was causing a routing problem by improper routing confirmation the carrier would lose their authority to revoke or limit the use of the IP space to protect the stability of the carrier's network. In other words, court-compelled LOAs are a 'bad thing.' 4. Because the IP space is still assigned to the carrier, the carrier would potentially be responsible to continue to respond to all SPAM and hacking complaints, DMCA violations, and all other forms of abuse. All of this abuse responsibility and liability would continue with no recourse to revoke or limit IP space of that customer and no ability to receive financial compensation for that task. This is not a theoretical problem, in the case of this customer we have received numerous abuse complaints throughout their history as a customer. While they have generally resolved these issues, it still is a real cost for us to handle. This is something that has the potential to create a massive burden for the carrier. 5. It would fundamentally change the long standing policy that the carrier that has the IP space assigned to them has the right to assign and revoke the IP space as it sees fit, and that the customer has no rights to the IP space other then the rights that the carrier gives them (through a delegation from ARIN). 6. If the customer is being DDOSed, or attacked (perhaps they may even instigate it purposely), and then stops announcing the more specific routes, the attack when then flow to us, the innocent bystander. Essentially, the customer could cause a DDOS for which I will then be billed for. This type of thing has been known to happen in the past (but not with this CUSTOMER). As you can see, this TRO has widespread effects, and is something that everyone in the industry could be affected by. If this precedent is set, you will soon have everyone acting as if IP's are property, and something that they are entitled to. I ask for input from everyone in the community on this. We don't think we're crazy, but want to make sure. From marla_azinger at eli.net Tue Jun 29 13:07:22 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:07:22 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court s ays yes!) Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D26276FD@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Thank you Ray. Sorry I missed this before sending out my last email asking about this. Marla -----Original Message----- From: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:23 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Charles Scott > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:24 AM > To: Ray Plzak > Cc: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court > says yes!) > > > Ray: > Question? Is this a ruling affecting the provider only, or was ARIN a > party in this legal action? In otherwords, is this only binding on the > provider or is it also binding on ARIN. It would seem that if ARIN was not > a party in the case, that ARIN may not be bound by the decision. If so, > would ARIN still be able to enforce the non-portability of address space, > potentially leaving the party who won portability with an empty victory? > Can someone provide a link to the full text of the decision? > > Chuck > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ray Plzak wrote: > > > The ARIN General Counsel is and has been aware of this. Appropriate > > measures are being considered and will be pursued. The actions taken by > > ARIN in this regard will be a matter of the appropriate public record. > > > > Raymond A. Plzak > > President & CEO > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of > > > Michael.Dillon at radianz.com > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:03 AM > > > To: ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? > (Court > > > says yes!) > > > > > > > Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be > > > > considering whether > > > > or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state > > > > court? > > > > > > Oops. That should be Superior Court of State New Jersey. > > > > From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 29 18:05:51 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:05:51 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> As has been repeatedly pointed out, ARIN cannot enforce anything, their power is limited only to the refusal to issue new resources. Once a resource is allocated it is largely outside of ARIN control and depends almost entirely on community consensus and self-governance. I'm not particularly happy about this state of affairs, but, there is much grief that comes with giving ARIN more direct power, including U.S. constitutional issues. It would be good if someone could verify the netblock in question. I haven't read the exact TRO, but, I suspect that NAC could publish an announcement about the status of the block, possibly including a request that providers "do the right thing in assisting NAC in complying with the TRO until such time as a final ruling is made by the court" without violating the terms of the TRO. An alternative strategy would be for NAC to enumerate the prefix(es) involved in comments filed in the proceeding. Since those would then be part of the public record, NAC or anyone else could publish them. Heck, has anyone looked through the entire public record of the current proceeding to verify that the prefix(es) are not enumerated therein? Owen --On Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:24 -0400 Charles Scott wrote: > > Ray: > Question? Is this a ruling affecting the provider only, or was ARIN a > party in this legal action? In otherwords, is this only binding on the > provider or is it also binding on ARIN. It would seem that if ARIN was > not a party in the case, that ARIN may not be bound by the decision. If > so, would ARIN still be able to enforce the non-portability of address > space, potentially leaving the party who won portability with an empty > victory? Can someone provide a link to the full text of the decision? > > Chuck > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ray Plzak wrote: > >> The ARIN General Counsel is and has been aware of this. Appropriate >> measures are being considered and will be pursued. The actions taken by >> ARIN in this regard will be a matter of the appropriate public record. >> >> Raymond A. Plzak >> President & CEO >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of >> > Michael.Dillon at radianz.com >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:03 AM >> > To: ppml at arin.net >> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? >> > (Court says yes!) >> > >> > > Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be >> > > considering whether >> > > or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state >> > > court? >> > >> > Oops. That should be Superior Court of State New Jersey. >> >> > > -- If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably a forgery. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dgolding at burtongroup.com Tue Jun 29 18:52:06 2004 From: dgolding at burtongroup.com (Daniel Golding) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:52:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> Message-ID: ARIN's appropriate action is to file an Amicus Curae (Friend of the Court) Brief with the appropriate court. This should be informational in nature - the judge probably has no idea what the common industry practices are on this area. -- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group On 6/29/04 6:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > As has been repeatedly pointed out, ARIN cannot enforce anything, their > power > is limited only to the refusal to issue new resources. Once a resource is > allocated it is largely outside of ARIN control and depends almost entirely > on community consensus and self-governance. I'm not particularly happy > about > this state of affairs, but, there is much grief that comes with giving ARIN > more direct power, including U.S. constitutional issues. > > It would be good if someone could verify the netblock in question. I > haven't > read the exact TRO, but, I suspect that NAC could publish an announcement > about the status of the block, possibly including a request that providers > "do the right thing in assisting NAC in complying with the TRO until such > time as a final ruling is made by the court" without violating the terms > of the TRO. > > An alternative strategy would be for NAC to enumerate the prefix(es) > involved > in comments filed in the proceeding. Since those would then be part of the > public record, NAC or anyone else could publish them. Heck, has anyone > looked through the entire public record of the current proceeding to verify > that the prefix(es) are not enumerated therein? > > Owen > > > --On Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:24 -0400 Charles Scott > wrote: > >> >> Ray: >> Question? Is this a ruling affecting the provider only, or was ARIN a >> party in this legal action? In otherwords, is this only binding on the >> provider or is it also binding on ARIN. It would seem that if ARIN was >> not a party in the case, that ARIN may not be bound by the decision. If >> so, would ARIN still be able to enforce the non-portability of address >> space, potentially leaving the party who won portability with an empty >> victory? Can someone provide a link to the full text of the decision? >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ray Plzak wrote: >> >>> The ARIN General Counsel is and has been aware of this. Appropriate >>> measures are being considered and will be pursued. The actions taken by >>> ARIN in this regard will be a matter of the appropriate public record. >>> >>> Raymond A. Plzak >>> President & CEO >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:03 AM >>>> To: ppml at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? >>>> (Court says yes!) >>>> >>>>> Is ARIN's legal counsel aware of this? Will the ARIN trustees be >>>>> considering whether >>>>> or not to file a "friend of the court" brief with the New York state >>>>> court? >>>> >>>> Oops. That should be Superior Court of State New Jersey. >>> >>> >> >> > > From randy at psg.com Tue Jun 29 18:59:59 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:59:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> Message-ID: <16609.62575.963166.648373@ran.psg.com> > ARIN's appropriate action is to file an Amicus Curae (Friend of the Court) > Brief with the appropriate court. This should be informational in nature - > the judge probably has no idea what the common industry practices are on > this area. it might be amusing, in a disgusting kind of way, to poll the industry to see what the folk in it think common practices are. i suspect that there is less agreement than we might like. and probably few remember or have read the archives on the subject. just to kick the silliness off, my fading memory is of generall consensus once upon a time that giving a departing customer a minumum of three to a maximum of six months to renumber was appropriate. randy From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Tue Jun 29 19:06:52 2004 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:06:52 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> Message-ID: In message <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> (on 29 June 2004 15:05:51 -0700), owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: >As has been repeatedly pointed out, ARIN cannot enforce anything, their >power is limited only to the refusal to issue new resources. Once a >resource is allocated it is largely outside of ARIN control and depends >almost entirely on community consensus and self-governance. I'm not >particularly happy about this state of affairs, but, there is much grief >that comes with giving ARIN more direct power, including >U.S. constitutional issues. ARIN can't enforce anything. But is anything stopping other providers than NAC from ignoring any publication by NAC that is forced by the TRO (and any publication from another ISP that the customer in question moves to)? -Allen -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ February 1, 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia Ad Astra Per Aspera To The Stars Through Asperity From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 29 19:08:51 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:08:51 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> Message-ID: <2147483647.1088525331@[10.27.191.121]> > ARIN can't enforce anything. But is anything stopping other providers than > NAC from ignoring any publication by NAC that is forced by the TRO (and > any publication from another ISP that the customer in question moves to)? > > -Allen Nothing that I know of, although, it is not unlikely UCI would then file for a TRO against said provider. Owen -- If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably a forgery. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Tue Jun 29 19:11:50 2004 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:11:50 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: <16609.62575.963166.648373@ran.psg.com> References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> <16609.62575.963166.648373@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: In message <16609.62575.963166.648373 at ran.psg.com> (on 29 June 2004 15:59:59 -0700), randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: >> ARIN's appropriate action is to file an Amicus Curae (Friend of the Court) >> Brief with the appropriate court. This should be informational in nature - >> the judge probably has no idea what the common industry practices are on >> this area. > >it might be amusing, in a disgusting kind of way, to poll the >industry to see what the folk in it think common practices are. >i suspect that there is less agreement than we might like. and >probably few remember or have read the archives on the subject. > >just to kick the silliness off, my fading memory is of generall >consensus once upon a time that giving a departing customer a >minumum of three to a maximum of six months to renumber was >appropriate. This would, I hope, depend on whether the customer was leaving due to a TOS violation or not? If the customer has been spamming (whether or not said spam was within the spam definition of the CAN-SPAM Act) or committing other network abuse, then it wuould appear appropriate to remove them immediately (although it may be best to wait a while to reuse said address space so that it can disappear from blacklists (public and private)...). -Allen -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ February 1, 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia Ad Astra Per Aspera To The Stars Through Asperity From randy at psg.com Tue Jun 29 19:13:57 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:13:57 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> <16609.62575.963166.648373@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <16609.63413.952507.676875@ran.psg.com> >> just to kick the silliness off, my fading memory is of generall >> consensus once upon a time that giving a departing customer a >> minumum of three to a maximum of six months to renumber was >> appropriate. > This would, I hope, depend on whether the customer was leaving > due to a TOS violation or not? my memory is that this was not an element of any discussion. my opinion is that it makes little difference. one should not confiscate property, whether loaned or owned. two wrongs do not make a right; three lefts do. randy From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Tue Jun 29 19:33:34 2004 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:33:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: <16609.63413.952507.676875@ran.psg.com> References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> <16609.62575.963166.648373@ran.psg.com> <16609.63413.952507.676875@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: In message <16609.63413.952507.676875 at ran.psg.com> (on 29 June 2004 16:13:57 -0700), randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: >>> just to kick the silliness off, my fading memory is of generall >>> consensus once upon a time that giving a departing customer a >>> minumum of three to a maximum of six months to renumber was >>> appropriate. >> This would, I hope, depend on whether the customer was leaving >> due to a TOS violation or not? > >my memory is that this was not an element of any discussion. > >my opinion is that it makes little difference. one should not >confiscate property, whether loaned or owned. If the property is loaned (whether or not it was previously loaned to the new loaning party) under conditions, and said conditions are violated, then the loan is properly terminated/terminatable. In order to prevent further abuse, this termination may need to be adrupt, whether or not courtesy dictates that said termination not be adrupt without the element of abuse involved. (We do not know as yet whether abuse was involved in this instance, of course. Anyone have any data on that?) -Allen -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ February 1, 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia Ad Astra Per Aspera To The Stars Through Asperity From randy at psg.com Tue Jun 29 19:36:32 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:36:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> <16609.62575.963166.648373@ran.psg.com> <16609.63413.952507.676875@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <16609.64768.449465.342611@ran.psg.com> >> my opinion is that it makes little difference. one should not >> confiscate property, whether loaned or owned. > If the property is loaned (whether or not it was previously > loaned to the new loaning party) under conditions, and said > conditions are violated, then the loan is properly > terminated/terminatable. In order to prevent further abuse, this > termination may need to be adrupt, whether or not courtesy > dictates that said termination not be adrupt without the element > of abuse involved. you are entitled to your opinion, thought it might be more polite if it was couched as such. as it stands, the nsp security community has means of dealing with gross violations of the internet. randy From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Tue Jun 29 20:05:24 2004 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:05:24 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1088525331@[10.27.191.121]> References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> <2147483647.1088525331@[10.27.191.121]> Message-ID: In message <2147483647.1088525331@[10.27.191.121]> (on 29 June 2004 16:08:51 -0700), owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: >> ARIN can't enforce anything. But is anything stopping other providers than >> NAC from ignoring any publication by NAC that is forced by the TRO (and >> any publication from another ISP that the customer in question moves to)? >> >> -Allen > >Nothing that I know of, although, it is not unlikely UCI would then file for >a TRO against said provider. True, provided that said provider has a US presence. (The A in ARIN stands for the (two) continents, not for USA, after all.) -Allen -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Tue Jun 29 20:13:31 2004 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:13:31 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: <16609.64768.449465.342611@ran.psg.com> References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> <16609.62575.963166.648373@ran.psg.com> <16609.63413.952507.676875@ran.psg.com> <16609.64768.449465.342611@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: In message <16609.64768.449465.342611 at ran.psg.com> (on 29 June 2004 16:36:32 -0700), randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: >>> my opinion is that it makes little difference. one should not >>> confiscate property, whether loaned or owned. >> If the property is loaned (whether or not it was previously >> loaned to the new loaning party) under conditions, and said >> conditions are violated, then the loan is properly >> terminated/terminatable. In order to prevent further abuse, this >> termination may need to be adrupt, whether or not courtesy >> dictates that said termination not be adrupt without the element >> of abuse involved. > >you are entitled to your opinion, thought it might be more polite >if it was couched as such. I am not quite sure what of the above, of what I have written, is an opinion, as opposed to a fact (e.g., about how loans work) or a deduction from said facts. I may, of course, have gotten either my facts or my deductions wrong, and would appreciate any correction on this regard. >as it stands, the nsp security community has means of dealing with >gross violations of the internet. I am uncertain as to how much difference a (properly-informed) court would see between not routing from (or otherwise blocking on a large scale) an IP address and removing the IP address from a party's control, given that the function of an IP address is communication. -Allen -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From dgolding at burtongroup.com Tue Jun 29 20:16:36 2004 From: dgolding at burtongroup.com (Daniel Golding) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:16:36 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: <16609.62575.963166.648373@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: On 6/29/04 6:59 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: >> ARIN's appropriate action is to file an Amicus Curae (Friend of the Court) >> Brief with the appropriate court. This should be informational in nature - >> the judge probably has no idea what the common industry practices are on >> this area. > > it might be amusing, in a disgusting kind of way, to poll the > industry to see what the folk in it think common practices are. > i suspect that there is less agreement than we might like. and > probably few remember or have read the archives on the subject. > > just to kick the silliness off, my fading memory is of generall > consensus once upon a time that giving a departing customer a > minumum of three to a maximum of six months to renumber was > appropriate. > > randy > Heh. Yes, that's how I remember it as well. I meant more along the lines of differences between portable vs non-portable space, ARIN's position on ownership of IP addresses, possible hazards of chaos in IP addressing, blah blah Of course, this is a contractual dispute between the two parties and will be resolved as such. -- Dan From ras at e-gerbil.net Tue Jun 29 21:00:32 2004 From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:00:32 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> Message-ID: <20040630010032.GU41985@overlord.e-gerbil.net> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:06:52PM -0400, Ed Allen Smith wrote: > > ARIN can't enforce anything. But is anything stopping other providers > than NAC from ignoring any publication by NAC that is forced by the TRO > (and any publication from another ISP that the customer in question > moves to)? Either: a) You don't want to end up with NAC being accused of indirectly inciting a violation of the TRO, which would be a contempt of court, or b) You don't want to contribute to the Denial of Service against a company which is doing nothing more than correctly trying to protect its best interests in a contractual dispute by seeking legal remedies. Your choice. You might also want to consider actually reading the complaint before you start planning vigilante justice. The TRO is really more about the orderly continuation of an existing contract for IP transit and colocation services at existing rates (which are *significantly* higher than current market rates mind you), than it is about portable or non-portable IP space. The bottom line is that there is no harm for the provider to continue providing service under the existing terms, while the perceived issues named in the complaint are considered by the court. In fact, it is a MAJOR monetary advantage for the provider, they get to continue selling services at an extremely high price compared to the current market for that much longer. Under these circumstances, TRO's are routinely granted to prevent a provider from intentionally causing harm to the business of a customer they know they won't be keeping. IP addresses barely come in to play here, except as a generator of knee-jerk reactions from folks on mailing lists. -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 30 10:38:42 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:38:42 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) In-Reply-To: References: <2147483647.1088521551@[10.27.191.121]> <2147483647.1088525331@[10.27.191.121]> Message-ID: <2147483647.1088581122@[10.27.191.121]> --On Tuesday, June 29, 2004 20:05 -0400 Ed Allen Smith wrote: > In message <2147483647.1088525331@[10.27.191.121]> (on 29 June 2004 > 16:08:51 -0700), owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: >>> ARIN can't enforce anything. But is anything stopping other providers >>> than NAC from ignoring any publication by NAC that is forced by the TRO >>> (and any publication from another ISP that the customer in question >>> moves to)? >>> >>> -Allen >> >> Nothing that I know of, although, it is not unlikely UCI would then file >> for a TRO against said provider. > > True, provided that said provider has a US presence. (The A in ARIN stands > for the (two) continents, not for USA, after all.) > > -Allen Your question was about the action of an ISP. ARIN isn't involved, and, nothing would limit that ISP to the ARIN region. Not having a US presence does not prevent UCI from trying to get a TRO against them. It may, however, reduce the usefulness of said TRO if issued by US court. Depending on the countries, however, UCI may be able to seek relief in any number of countries where said ISP has a presence. Owen -- If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably a forgery. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: