[ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)

[Bill Darte]

James wrote....
> 
> IMHO, i fail to see where this is a serious problem.
> If the internet communitee/industry refuses to recognize
> WIANA's claim to 1/8 then the only harm is to WIANA
> and its "customers". As long as WIANA's internet peers do
> not accept traffic from and/or advertise WIANA's route(s)
> to 1/8 then attempts for WIANA to connect to the internet
> from 1/8 will fail. IANA and the RIR's do have the ability to
> enforce peers not to accept WIANA's  traffic and advertise
> its routes by  revoking an offending peer's addresses.
> This is no different than if I tried to use 1/8 or any other network
> that is not allocated/assigned to me.

I maintain that this is unrealistic..... IANA and RIRs have NO power.  It is
really my point.  The power to recind an allocation is a theatric.  If the
routing community continues to announce an existing block then it is NOT
recinded.  If the ISPs announce 1/8 then it is allocated.  It is the
recognition that together (the routing and address mgt community) is what
creates order and stability in the Internet.... an natural mutualistic
symbiosis....

I believe that it is interesting to contemplate an MOU between the RIRs and
the the 'routing community' which formalizes a means to evaluate an agree to
actions that further coordinate this natural collaboration and strengthens
the industries ability to police itself and enforce 'good' behavior.  Of
course this framework for cooperation could extend to other issues like
filtering and address allocation boundaries, etc.

Is there an world-wide ISP industry organization that scales to the level of
representation needed to enter into agreements with RIRs or would this idea
fail under the sheer weight of trying to work out individual agreements with
hundreds of ISPs?

Bill Darte
ARIN Advisory Council 

> 
> 
> J.T.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bill Darte" <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
> To: "'David Conrad '" <david.conrad at nominum.com>
> Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:35 PM
> Subject: RE: [ppml] IP address theft?
> 
> 
> > David,
> >
> > I understand and agree. In fact the 'legality' is 
> irrelevant.  It is an
> > operational imperative that the convention exists and is abided.
> >
> > Still if there are those who choose or through ignorance do 
> not cooperate
> in
> > this imperative then there must be some corrective actions 
> in order to
> > elicit the proper behavior.
> >
> > When no force of law exists (and thankfully military action 
> can be ruled
> > out), then the industry which is dependant upon the proper 
> behavior itself
> > must enforce compliance.  But, can it?... and if not what then?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > <David wrote>
> > Bill,
> >
> > I am not a lawyer so I won't pretend to know whether it is 
> "theft" in
> > the legal sense.
> >
> > The global uniqueness of address space that makes the 
> Internet work is
> > merely an indirect convention mutually agreed upon by both 
> ISPs and end
> > users.  The implementation of this global uniqueness has 
> been via the
> > structures represented by the IANA and the RIRs.  Take away those
> > conventions as WIANA is attempting to do and something will have to
> > take their place.  If you were in charge of a large scale ISP and
> > multiple sets of folks all came to you with the same 
> address space they
> > claimed to be theirs, which would you choose?  My guess, as I have
> > become a bit cynical, would be the one that pays the most...
> >
> > Not a place I want to go.
> >
> > Rgds,
> > -drc
> >
> > On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:01  AM, Bill Darte wrote:
> >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard
> > > WIANA
> > > below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.
> > >
> > > It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, 
> but there is
> >
> > > a
> > > significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the
> > > infrastructure
> > > reliable and predictable.
> > > Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in 
> use, but is it
> > > theft
> > > in the eyes of the law?
> > > If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's 
> incorporation
> >
> > > or
> > > the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive
> > > dominion
> > > on these 'things'?
> > >
> > > Do you use the term literally or figuratively?
> > >
> > > Bill Darte
> > > ARIN AC
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Michael,
> > >>
> > >> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, 
> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone
> > >> such action?
> > >>> They are trying to use it, not steal it.
> > >>
> > >> Which is what a car jacker might say.
> > >>
> > >> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, 
> which according
> > >> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been
> > >> reserved since
> > >> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to
> > >> remove that
> > >> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without
> > >> following
> > >> existing, published address allocation policies.
> > >>
> > >> This is theft.
> > >>
> > >>> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
> > >>
> > >> This isn't about conserving address space or whether or 
> not they are
> > >> using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet 
> works because
> > >> most people see it is in their self-interest to 
> cooperate.  Part of
> > >> this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system
> > >> including the IANA as a meeting point to define global
> > >> addressability.
> > >> The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this 
> cooperative system for,
> > >> as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different
> > >> information?
> > >>
> > >> Rgds,
> > >> -drc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
>