[arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please help?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:10 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'Jeremy H.Griffith'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can you please help?
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Yes, IP address hijackers land up in jail all the time. 
> Especially the ones who blatantly disrupt others businesses.
> 

An address hijack is an offence against the proper user of the
block, not against ARIN.  ARIN has no power to file charges, the
hijackee does.  Just because most of them are too ignorant/lazy/
misinformed to get the FBI involved and press charges or file a
lawsuit against the offender doesn't mean it's OK.

People steal millions of bucks by stealing $20 a time from 
hundreds of thousands of victims - just because our current
generation of D.A.s are too stupid to file charges doesn't
mean that eventually a younger and Internet-savvy group won't
start doing it.

They didn't use to prosecute polluters when they caught 'em.
Times change.

> >   
> >> We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and logical 
> >> course of action.
> >>
> >> We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in their 
> >> pursuit for IPv4.
> >>
> >> We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but that 
> >> may simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > The question is, how much incentive?
> >   
> 
> Any avoidable is too much. There are organizations waiting 
> for the excuse.
> 
> I could do it right now. Simply grab a bunch of /8's from 
> IANA reserved or legacy allocations that arent advertised and 
> set up shop.
> 

Which is why I and others proposed 2008-7.  Are you for it or
against it? The reason you probably could "get away" with it
right now is because ARIN has no power to identify that your
even doing it - thus the need for 2008-7.

Lots of homeless people nowadays are squatting in abandoned
homes that are bank foreclosures.  Because there's such a surplus
of these properties, they aren't being thrown out.  What they
are doing is illegal as all get out, but there's little police
enforcement:

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/03/city-foreclosures-open-space-squatters

and there won't be until the housing market heats up and these
homes have value again.

Until IPv4 runout, don't expect to see much effort on enforcement
actions against IPv4 squatters.

> Get enough patrons and before you know it, ISP's will route 
> ARIN registrations and JOE registrations with equal credibility.
> 
> ARIN registrations come with no guarantee of usability and 
> neither do JOE's, so whats the difference?
> 

When ARIN executes 2008-7 there will be some guarantee of
verifiability.

> > Suppose we make it unpleasant, so a business that wants 
> more IPv4 has 
> > to go buy a smaller business that's failing, for example, to get 
> > around the restriction.  Well, that's going to be weighed 
> against the 
> > cost to convert to IPv6 and use proxies.
> >   
> Leaving aside the details of the current policy approved 
> method of transferring registry acknowledged IP addresses 
> which is likely a lot easier than you think, thats not their 
> only option.
> 
> They can just participate in black market with either exists 
> or is near certain to emerge. Or outright hijacking (same 
> thing different perspective). Bringing them into direct 
> confrontation with ARIN and other registries.
> 
> Confrontations have losers. You are implicitly gambling that 
> it wont ever be ARIN.
> 

Correct.  Because if it was ARIN then we still win.

Say for the sake of argument that some deep-pocket forces the
issue and strips ARIN of it's authority to regulate IPv4.  I
think that the result would be pretty much all legitimate ISP's
would just abandon public intercourse in IPv4 all the faster
since they would all regard the IPv4 address space as damaged.

Also, such authority would ONLY exist in a given nation.  US
laws don't apply to Canada, thus a lawsuit in the US that stripped
ARIN would not be recognized in Canada.  For an ISP in the US
that has a network that is both in Canada and the US, they will
as a practical matter still have to follow what Canada is
doing.

It would take action by US appealing to the UN to make anything
serious happen on a regulatory front, and by then, we would
have figured out and executed a defensive strategy with ARIN.
Not to mention that it's almost certain China would block it,
as they are going full speed into IPv6.

Basically, any attempt to disrupt ARIN over the IPv4 issue
just makes IPv6 come faster.

> > they
> > trust us geeks of the Internet to do the right thing with 
> IP addressing.
> >   
> 
> It only appears that way because things seem to be working. 
> If and when that changes, they will be trusting their talking 
> heads, who may very well be saying that us geeks have done a 
> horrible job and should be the ones being lynched.
> 
> Even were they to be geeks, what makes you think that its 
> going to be Geeks you agree with?

Because, any attempt to disrupt ARIN over the IPv4 issue
is just going to make IPv6 come faster.

If transfer proponents could really and truly exist without
ARIN they would not be spending effort trying to get ARIN to
bless a transfer scheme to begin with.  The reason they are
is that there's some smart people who see that if they can
get ARIN to bless what they want to do, they will have the
opportunity to make a big pile of money.  But, they know that
their fortunes are dependent on ARIN.

> > And the right thing is a small amount of short term pain 
> right now to 
> > get on to IPv6 to avoid a lot more pain long term.  If we take the 
> > easy way out and don't do this, I think they will be pretty 
> mad at us 
> > later on.
> >   
> 
> Even geeks dont agree on that. I may or may not be a geek, 
> but I certainly dont.
> 

If your subscribed to this list you're a geek.

> I believe it a false dichotomy.
> 
> The choice I see is between large amounts of long term pain 
> or small to medium amounts of  medium to long term pain.
> 
> The optomists who have trumpeted the timely arrival and conversion to
> ipv6 are few and far between these days. It would be a 
> pleasant surprise were that vision to come to fruition, but I 
> am not holding my breath.
> 

Catch-22

Not enough people are using IPv6 because people are arguing that it's not
ready, and it's not ready because not enough people are using IPv6.

There's only one way to break a catch-22 and that's by force.
 
Ted