I disagree that this is a straw man argument!
1) If the US Congress passes a law to change the status quo of ARIN's authority
over Legacy resources, you can say on this list that Congress does not have
that authority, but they funded the Internet - and every judge in America would
try to follow a law that congress passed before they would apply then current
ARIN policies. It's naïve to think that Congress does not still have this
power - at least over ARIN.
2) Well in case you've never looked at the high level assignments, take a look
at this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks
You will see that as of today a partial list organizations with /8 (Class A)
assignments are:
AT&T
Apple
Ford
Cogent
Prudential
US Postal Service
Comcast
There are also a lot of assignments that are smaller than a /8 but still
consist of a large amount of addresses including a lot of Class B's that were
assigned as Legacy addresses.
The organizations listed above as well as a lot of organizations who have large
blocks assigned to them are gorillas by my definition, as they have a lot of
staff attorney's on salary that work for them full time and of course these
organizations have deep pockets.
Additional /8 assignments currently that the Dept of Defense have assigned are:
Army Information Systems Center
DoD Network Information Center
DoD Intel Information Systems
DDN-RVN
+ 10 more I haven't listed
So if I am counting these right the DoD has 14 /8's assigned to them, and even
if I'm counting wrong they have a ton of addresses assigned to them.
(Then of course the RIR's have /8's assigned to them and you can see them on
this list as well.)
So, I don't know if AT&T has signed an agreement with ARIN but let's assume for
discussion they have not. My Dad is retired AT&T which is why I've picked them
for this discussion.
Lets say that there is a Class B in their Class A range that they have never
used - would it qualify as abandoned? Certainly AT&T is still a publicly
traded corporation so they still exist.
Would it be fair that AT&T has a Class B (65,534 addresses) they have never
used, and there are many organizations waiting patiently on the wait list for
IPv4 resources that can easily prove their need?
I'm guessing a lot of folks might agree its not fair but fair isn't the issue
here.
The issue is do they have rights of some kind to use those numbers in the
future since they were assigned to them as what we now call Legacy addresses?
I doubt most folks in this list would argue that they don't have the right to
use those resources since they are duly entered into ARIN's database like all
Legacy resources are.
They might argue it isn't fair but its hard to argue they don't have the right
to use them whenever they want to including in the future.
If 99% of this community decided it wasn't fair and somehow voted and convinced
ARIN to rescind that Class B from AT&T, ARIN would be in court the next day
trying to prove they have the right to take those addresses away from AT&T -
and AT&T would have a team of the best attorneys fighting ARIN in court.
It's difficult to predict who would win in any court case but AT&T could, if
they wanted, keep the court case going for many years and file appeals until
they either win - or until they exhaust ARIN's financial ability to continue to
fight in court. They are a gorilla by my definition and I don't mean that in a
derogatory way.
I would add that this is just one scenario, but I would argue that any scenario
that involves forcibly rescinding resources from any size legacy holder is
likely to end up in court or end with bad results - and the relatively small
amount of resources that might actually be recovered pales when compared with
the resources the DoD has assigned to them.
So, ARIN must treat all resource holders who have not signed an agreement with
ARIN the same, including Legacy Resource holders of all sizes.
If they can't or won't rescind resources from a gorilla, then they can't and
shouldn't do it to a smaller Class C Legacy holder either.
If this community wants more resources, the more obvious place to find them
isn't some relatively small block held by an organization or individual that
might be deceased, this community could try and convince the DoD to release
some portion of their very large /8 assignments. That could be fertile ground.
Who knows how many IPv4 addresses they are actually using and need.
I've never heard of it happening but it wouldn't surprise me if ARIN has
quietly discussed this possibility with the DoD as some point.
We wouldn't hear about it unless resources were actually released.
3) Because there are still a lot of Legacy holders that exist of all sizes
including gorillas, I'll repeat that I would be for ARIN voluntarily attempting
to contact in a positive manner all Legacy holders who have not signed an
agreement with ARIN, to discuss their assignments. I would be against ARIN
trying to forcibly rescind any of those Legacy assignments even if it means we
will run out of IPv4 addresses. I would be against ARIN forcibly trying to
rescind assignments that are listed in their database that HAVE signed an
agreement with ARIN as long as ARIN's normal invoices are paid for regularly by
any named entity on the check. If this community wants ARIN to attempt to
track down assignments for organizations or individuals who may be deceased -
great - but they should never try and forcibly rescind resources except for
fraud that is provable in a court of law. The only exception would be if
Congress changes ARIN's authority.
Ted, you are chasing a horse that will never will go back in the barn. Only
IPv6 has the possibility of putting a new horse in the barn.
Cheers!
Steven Ryerse
President
[email protected] | C: 770.656.1460
100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2022 6:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies
1) The US Congress does not have any control over the Internet so they can't do
squat about this.
2) You are constantly using "take back" in a way that implies these 800
pound gorillas are a) in existence b) actively using the blocks so
that anyone at the 800 pound gorilla would care enough to pay a lawyer for
anything.
3) In your last paragraph you switch to using "deceased blocks" which is in
opposition to your prior implication that blocks would be fought over.
I tire of the hand waving in these discussions. You assertion that there are
any numbers of /8's out there that are "deceased" that is, nobody is claiming
ownership of, and nobody is routing, is ridiculous on it's face.
Either a legacy owner wants to keep their assignment and will hire lawyers to
do it, or they don't give a tinkers damn about it. NOBODY in this discussion
and in any past discussions regarding Legacy blocks has ever, to my knowledge,
advocated to fight any organization that wants to expend effort retaining a
legacy block they own.
Every time this discussion comes up there are people who immediately rush to
conflate legacy blocks that owners want to keep and are willing to spend money
to keep, with legacy blocks that have owners that don't
exist anymore, and nobody is willing to spend a cent to "keep" This
just serves to send the discussion into a useless rabbithole with people
arguing over imaginary legal scenarios that have NEVER been proposed.
Please just stop it.
And I'm sorry to make it seem like I'm targeting you, Steven because I am not -
you are just the latest person to bring up that tired old argument that people
are trying to "take our IP numbers that we own"
It's a straw man argument and it needs to be retired. We are trying to clean
out the cobwebs here not ride into attack a legacy /8 holder like Microsoft. SO
KNOCK IT OFF!!!!!!
Ted
On 8/6/2022 1:27 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> The many posts to the PPML reflect your desire to somehow reclaim Legacy IPv4
> space that isn't being used or space that might have been acquired in a way
> that is deemed unethical or possibly worse. As you may know, these subjects
> have been discussed many many times ad nauseum in this PPML since the time
> ARIN was formed. ARIN does pursue transactions that are reported as
> fraudulent as evidenced by the multiple press releases dealing with fraud and
> the courts - that have been described in press releases in recent years
> shared on the PPML - so it appears the desire to follow up such reports is
> already a function that ARIN pursues when appropriate. I've seen each press
> release describing these cases have been applauded by many in this community
> and I applaud them as well.
>
> With all due respect, as for reclaiming Legacy blocks - some of those
> original Class A blocks (/8's) were awarded to 800 pound gorillas with
> unlimited deep pockets to pay their on-staff attorneys. I haven’t looked at
> the list lately but there were organizations like AT&T, IBM, Ford and even
> the Department of Defense had at least two /8’s - and if I recall Great
> Britain was awarded two /8’s back then. These all were legacy blocks awarded
> in the very early 90’s when the internet was new and the National Science
> Foundation was trying to gain acceptance of wider usage of the fledgling
> Internet.
>
> So at least some of these gorillas still have their blocks and I haven’t
> researched it, but at least some have never signed any legal agreement with
> ARIN since they got these blocks before ARIN existed - and they got them
> without any legalese written agreements that pertained to the blocks assigned
> to them.
>
> So if ARIN decided one day they are going to go after all of these blocks
> some of which are “unused” ipv4 blocks, then they would likely end up in
> court against an army of talented attorneys. This is not a desirable nor a
> positive situation for ARIN to be in.
>
> ARIN has to treat all legacy holders the same whether they were Class A or
> Class B or Class C. So I would support ARIN contacting all legacy holders in
> a positive manner that have not signed an agreement to see if any would
> voluntarily release unused resources and/or sign an agreement. The key words
> in the last sentence is voluntary and positive. However trying to take back
> any legacy resources by force without a signed ARIN agreement in place, or
> without the permission of the organization or individual the resources were
> awarded to doesn't make practical sense - and is fraught with possible
> negative consequences for ARIN.
>
> For the ARIN region, the only realistic way to change the dynamics and
> relationship between ARIN and Legacy holders without agreements would be for
> the US Congress to act, and this is possible but unlikely.
>
> Others have described the situation of Legacy Holders in the PPML as a horse
> that has already left the barn, and adding the fact that these 800 pound
> gorillas exist with their army of attorneys, short of an act of the US
> Congress - that horse isn't ever going back into the barn. Better we as a
> community should focus on moving the Internet forward in a positive manner
> than get caught up with trying to somehow chase a horse we can never catch.
> ARIN can of course try and contact legacy holders that are reported as
> "Deceased" but if they cannot reach anyone for confirmation then we will all
> just have to live with that block being out of usage. Those "deceased"
> blocks are not causing our organization or our customers any problems we
> can't overcome ourselves so we don't spend any time worrying about them. I
> realize the cost of IPv4 addresses keeps going up, but just as we pass along
> the cost of gasoline to our customers, we pass the cost of IPv4 addresses on
> to them as well as a cost of conducting business.
>
> I'm not in favor of chasing horse we can't catch. My two cents. 😉
>
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President & CEO
>
> [email protected] | 770.399.9099 ext. 502
> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ronald F.
> Guilmette
> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 3:30 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
