Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Fred Baker wrote: IP Addresses have always been treated as a resource of the network since its inception. The fact that lawmakers don't understand or care to understand doesn't change the facts of the case. I'm sure the same argument was used for telephone numbers when technical folk were arguing against number portability. Rgds, -drc
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
David Conrad wrote: I'm sure the same argument was used for telephone numbers when technical folk were arguing against number portability. Number portability is a different can of worms, and many telephone companies pushed for it. However, telephone numbers have been assigned in large blocks, when only 1 number might be needed. This was a big issue for CLEC dailups, where 999 numbers could go to waste. If ARIN handed out prefixes the same way, there wouldn't be any IPv4 space left. Dude! Check it! I got a /20 for my house, man! It was a steal. Remember in the day when ARIN wouldn't let me have it because I only have 2 hosts here? *insane laughter* or IPs for sale! We've acquired 20 /8 networks! How big do you want to go? (given that laws have indicated a dislike for domain squatting, I wonder how IP squatting would work?) -Jack
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:37:05 -0700 David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure the same argument was used for telephone numbers when technical folk were arguing against number portability. Oh come on. You know perfectly well that phone numbers are not the same as IP. No one knows me by my IP address. They know me by my email address(es). Heck, even I don't know my own IP address without running ifconfig and I installed it and maintain the system. If we were still calling central and asking Hi Mabel, can you put me through to Doc, no one would give a rat's ass about phone number portability. Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit number portability. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:43:36AM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net wrote a message of 20 lines which said: No one knows me by my IP address. They know me by my email address(es). It does not seem true. IP addresses are visible outside in: * DNS servers when you get a zone delegation (the most important reason why changing IP addresses is a pain), * some peer-to-peer networks like Freenet, which do not use the DNS. (There are also a lof of internal uses of IP addresses for instance in firewalls and SSH caches.) So, you actually have: 1) Phone numbers (very visible outside) 2) IP addresses (visible outside) 3) MAC addresses (completely invisible outside except for a few minutes in the ARP caches)
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Sep 13, 2006, at 8:43 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:37:05 -0700 David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure the same argument was used for telephone numbers when technical folk were arguing against number portability. Oh come on. You know perfectly well that phone numbers are not the same as IP. No one knows me by my IP address. They know me by my email address(es). Heck, even I don't know my own IP address without running ifconfig and I installed it and maintain the system. If we were still calling central and asking Hi Mabel, can you put me through to Doc, no one would give a rat's ass about phone number portability. Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit number portability. In point of fact, phone numbers as David is describing them are much more of a parallel to DNS than to IP. BTNs (Billing Telephone Numbers) which are not portable are like IP addresses. The way the telephone system works is when you dial a number, it is looked up in the SS7 database and mapped to a BTN. The call is then routed based on that BTN to its destination, with the dialed number in the DNIS field and the BTN in the destination field. Much like an HTTP request to a virtual server. Owen PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Le 2006-09-13 à 11:43, D'Arcy J.M. Cain a écrit : Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit number portability. I don't know about that. I have always harboured a desire to visit ZOWISAP0001 in person. I hear Zoowie Island is quite lovely at this time of year. This is not a serious comment. I am just being CLLI. Joe
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:53:04 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:43:36AM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net wrote a message of 20 lines which said: No one knows me by my IP address. They know me by my email address(es). Huh? Are you trying to imply something? If your email software automatically adds that statement then please fix it. It's insulting when you trim the message to a shorter statement that you are responding to. The other 18 lines may not have been important to this particular response but they were not content free. It does not seem true. IP addresses are visible outside in: * DNS servers when you get a zone delegation (the most important reason why changing IP addresses is a pain), I reiterate, no one knows me by my IP address. The software (DNS) they use may and some people may need to make a change but the world in general does not need to know that. That's the whole point of DNS. My point is that my friends and aquaintences may remember my number or have it in their Rolodex but no one has to remember my IP address and very few ever have to even deal with it at all and those that do, only for a moment. OK, my real point is that phone numbers are not like IP addresses. You may find a dark corner that exhibits some similarity but the basic analogy is flawed. * some peer-to-peer networks like Freenet, which do not use the DNS. I don't know enough about Freenet but I am willing to bet that users don't need to remember IP addresses to get the benefits of it. (There are also a lof of internal uses of IP addresses for instance in firewalls and SSH caches.) I never said that IP addresses were never used anywhere. That would be ridiculous. They are entered into firewalls, routers, DNS servers and such. What I said was that users (remember them) don't have to memorize or track them. So, you actually have: 1) Phone numbers (very visible outside) 2) IP addresses (visible outside) 3) MAC addresses (completely invisible outside except for a few minutes in the ARP caches) Even number 3 does not leak out of the local area. However, I fail to see what conclusion you wish me to draw from this. I don't know anyone with any modicum of understanding of IP protocols that would dispute these statements other than my nit about number 3. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:17:59PM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: I reiterate, no one knows me by my IP address. The software (DNS) they use may and some people may need to make a change but the world in general does not need to know that. That's the whole point of DNS. Let me adjust that for you: I reiterate, no one knows me by my phone number. The phone book they use may and some people may need to make a change but the world in general does not need to know that. That's the whole point of the phone book. My point is that my friends and aquaintences may remember my number or have it in their Rolodex but no one has to remember my IP address and very few ever have to even deal with it at all and those that do, only for a moment. Some people may know your phone number off the top of their heads, but most will have to look it up. The main difference I see is that there is a dynamic system for looking up IP addresses, so changes are easier to propagate. The Rolodex is the equivalent of a hosts file. The phone book roughly equates to mailing out a zone file periodically. Calling 411 is probably about as close to DNS as the phone system gets. We have phone numbers so the network knows where to send the call, not because they are convenient for people to remember. OK, my real point is that phone numbers are not like IP addresses. You may find a dark corner that exhibits some similarity but the basic analogy is flawed. They may not be identical, but I think the analogy works well. In both cases the numeric address is used to route to a destination device. In both cases, we have a reference system to resolve a name to said address. -c
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
I'm sure the same argument was used for telephone numbers when technical folk were arguing against number portability. Oh come on. Where are we going? You know perfectly well that phone numbers are not the same as IP. Yes. I was making an analogy about what I suspect the technical arguments used during discussions on telephone numbering portability were. No one knows me by my IP address. Debatable (I'm sure if you engaged in sufficiently criminal activity over the Internet, you would be tracked down by the IP address you used). However, that is irrelevant. While you personally may not be referenced by IP address, the network interfaces used to reach you are known by IP address and those addresses cannot be changed without interrupting communication. They know me by my email address(es). Heck, even I don't know my own IP address without running ifconfig and I installed it and maintain the system. I have been told on numerous occasions that one of the reasons IPv6 has not seen significant deployment is because enterprises do not want to obtain their address space from their service provider due to (among other reasons) the cost of renumbering. Are you indicating you believe that renumbering is not an issue? Rgds, -drc
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:38:49 -0700 Clay Fiske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:17:59PM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: I reiterate, no one knows me by my IP address. The software (DNS) they use may and some people may need to make a change but the world in general does not need to know that. That's the whole point of DNS. Let me adjust that for you: No thanks. I reiterate, no one knows me by my phone number. The phone book they use may and some people may need to make a change but the world in general does not need to know that. That's the whole point of the phone book. I know many of my friends phone numbers by heart. I also know many businesses by their phone number. There is a popular pizza chain here that uses their phone number in their jingle. Just last night I noticed a vet across the street from a bar I was in who's phone number was 481-PETS. I would have no need to look that up in any book. There are many cases when we have to look up numbers but numbers is what we need in the end to phone someone. This is a weakness, one that the architects of the Internet fixed by introducing domains. Domains are what we have to remember, store in our rolodexes and look up in Internet phone books. My point is that my friends and aquaintences may remember my number or have it in their Rolodex but no one has to remember my IP address and very few ever have to even deal with it at all and those that do, only for a moment. Some people may know your phone number off the top of their heads, but most will have to look it up. The main difference I see is that there is a dynamic system for looking up IP addresses, so changes are easier If we know the domain which is the thing that users are required to remember. I deal with a music store called Long McQuade here in Toronto. The first few times I wanted to check out their web site I looked them up in the phone book (a.k.a. Google) but eventually I learned to remember Long-McQuade.com. I still can't remember their phone number. I generally go to the web site to get it. to propagate. The Rolodex is the equivalent of a hosts file. The phone book roughly equates to mailing out a zone file periodically. Calling 411 is probably about as close to DNS as the phone system gets. No, calling 411 is closer to hitting Google. I don't call 411 to get the BTN or circuit number. We have phone numbers so the network knows where to send the call, not because they are convenient for people to remember. The phone number system doesn't scale well. Too late to fix it now. OK, my real point is that phone numbers are not like IP addresses. You may find a dark corner that exhibits some similarity but the basic analogy is flawed. They may not be identical, but I think the analogy works well. In both cases the numeric address is used to route to a destination device. In both cases, we have a reference system to resolve a name to said address. I'm beginning to think I am feeding the troll here. I am sure that 99.9% of the people on this list understand that phone numbers are more analogous to domains than to IP addresses. Yes, it's a flawed analogy but less flawed than the other. I think I am done with this particular my analogy is bigger than your analogy war. Oops. Did I just make another analogy? :-) -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net wrote: If we were still calling central and asking Hi Mabel, can you put me through to Doc, no one would give a rat's ass about phone number portability. Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit number portability. ... or street number portability. Thanks $deity. --Johnny
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Johnny Eriksson wrote: D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net wrote: If we were still calling central and asking Hi Mabel, can you put me through to Doc, no one would give a rat's ass about phone number portability. Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit number portability. ... or street number portability. Thanks $deity. Where is the Anti Digit Dialing League when you really need them? http://www.areacode-info.com/headline/1999/ca990503b.htm -- Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clay Fiske [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Some people may know your phone number off the top of their heads, but most will have to look it up. They will look mine up by reading my business card, reading my adverts, calling up my web page (OK, they are just an online advert), or looking at my email sig (OK, not the one I use here). But none of these says call 411 to get my number. In fact, I'm usually unlisted, to avoid getting unwanted calls from strangers. -- Roland Perry
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Johnny Eriksson wrote: D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net wrote: If we were still calling central and asking Hi Mabel, can you put me through to Doc, no one would give a rat's ass about phone number portability. Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit number portability. ... or street number portability. Thanks $deity. Indeed - it's entirely sensible to me that buildings are numbered in order of construction in that particular region ... cheers! == A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now.
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Thus spake Johnny Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net wrote: If we were still calling central and asking Hi Mabel, can you put me through to Doc, no one would give a rat's ass about phone number portability. Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit number portability. ... or street number portability. Thanks $deity. That's the canonical argument against address portability -- you can't take your street address with you when you move. ( I suppose now would be a bad time to point out I have a portable ZIP code: it's mine for life as long as I pay for the service it came with, no matter where I move. ) S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:45:58PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote: Joe makes a good point. Everyone is shouting no one owns IP addresses, but that is proof by assertion. ...as is asserting that marketplace economics work for any and all things. I lean toward low-regulation myself - why would I want any regional governmental entity sticking its fingers into a process that is 100% open to its constituents? If anything, the free market of *ideas* is working quite well for the policy arena, with less up-front cost and complexity. There is a strong argument to be made for ownership of IP addressing and subsequently trading address space as a commodity, with ARIN as a commodity exchange and clearinghouse. Is this reaction people hating lawyers more than ARIN, or what? It is funny for a free-marketeer to go down the road of wanting to create more regulation: financial markets/trading floors are one of the models that require a non-trivial support structure in mechanics, legislation and regulation. Sure all that activity might employ more folks (mostly inside the beltway), but will we be better off in the end? On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:50:04PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote: [snip] You make an incorrect assumption - that IP addresses are currently free (they are not, in either money or time) and that commoditizing them will increase their cost (there is significant evidence it will not). Who here is invoking proof by assertion? 'Evidence' implies something concrete. At present, the currency in the above-board IP addressing market are tied to clues rather than dollars. Those with clues (by bothering to read the specs, hiring permanently, or renting them) sail through the process while those without get frustrated. Because some folks with more dollars than clues get frustrated at applying decades-old technology of indirection through DNS labels, why change the infrastructure to let the dollars win over the clues? If they can't read the instructions to unbolt their training wheels should they even be operating infrastructure? I'd suggest that the ARIN public policy and any related flights of armchair-economist musings would be best suited to the ARIN ppml list. ...though I suspect the topic will occupy some of us at dinner tongiht. :-) Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
News of this case has been sent here before (by [EMAIL PROTECTED] back in July). Is anything really happening with the case? It's case number 5:06-cv-02554-JW They're still skirmishing about whether this is the right court to file such a suit and stuff like that. Most recent order was on 8/28, latest hearing was I think on Monday. R's, John
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Sep 12, 2006, at 2:45 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: What would establish IP addresses as some sort of ARIN-owned and licensed community property? Well, winning a court case like this, or congress passing a law. Korea also has passed a law that any addresses assign to KRNIC become the property of KRNIC. But even passing a law doesn't make it so. IP Addresses have always been treated as a resource of the network since its inception. The fact that lawmakers don't understand or care to understand doesn't change the facts of the case.
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this: Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum. Before you start making inferences from an analogy, you had better be sure that you have the right analogy. IP addresses are not like any of the things that you mention. They are like phone numbers which also are not property and also managed by a central admin function NANPA. --Michael Dillon
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Your statement about preferential treatment is factually incorrect. Larger ARIN members do not get larger allocations. It is the larger network infrastructures that get the larger allocations which is not directly tied to the size of the company. Yes, larger companies often have larger infrastructures. And that's the point: A company that is established gets preferential treatment over one that is not; that is called a barrier to entry by the anti-trust crowd. You need to understand the basics of networking to see that this is NOT preferential treatment but is instead even-handed treatment. You see, a network is a collection of devices interconnected with circuits. Each point where a circuit connects to a device is called an interface. Devices may have more than one interface. Typically, the devices used by network operators have many interfaces. IP addresses are numbers used to uniquely identify such interfaces and the Internet Protocol (IP) requires that these numbers be assigned in a structured manner. It is then obvious that larger networks have more interfaces and therefore can TECHNICALLY justify more addresses. This is even-handed treatment even though small companies end up with less addresses than large companies. You may feel that such a barrier is justified and fair, but those on the other side of it (or more importantly, their lawyers) are likely to disagree. Yes, lawyers do not understand networks. No doubt some of them will read the above text and begin to get a glimmer of understanding. Of course it's directly connected; all you have to do is look at the current fee schedule and you'll see: /24 = $4.88/IP /23 = $2.44/IP That is completely untrue. ARIN's web page here http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html says nothing of the sort. In fact, ARIN's annual fees are structure so that organizations which have a larger transaction volume pay a larger fee. These transactions could be IP address applications or SWIP transactions or in-addr.arpa traffic. The size categories are just a rough rule of thumb for categorizing organizations that has been accepted by the ARIN members themselves. So, just between the two ends of the fee schedule, we have a difference of _two orders of magnitude_ in how much an registrant pays divided by how much address space they get. Large organizations get their allocations bit by bit, applying for 3-6 months requirements at a time. Small organizations may have only a single allocation. Besides the above, Kremen also points out that larger prefixes are more likely to be routed, therefore refusing to grant larger prefixes (which aren't justified, in ARIN's view) is another barrier to entry. Again, since the folks deciding these policies are, by and large, folks who are already major players in the market, it's easy to put an anticometitive slant on that. Routability decisions are not made by ARIN. If anyone is unhappy with routability they should be suing those organizations which recommend route filtering. But they would have to prove that the route filtering is not technically justified which will be difficult when all the expert witnesses are on the other side. --Michael Dillon
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Since the public policy meetings and mailing lists where consensus is judged are open to any interested party, it is very hard to view this as an anti-competitive act in my opinion. Kremen filed the suit on April 12, 2006. That is the last day of the ARIN public meeting in Montreal. I was at the Montreal meeting and Kremen never appeared publicly there to question ARIN's actions. It make me think that he did not make a reasonable attempt to resolve the situation out of court. --Michael Dillon
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Joe makes a good point. Everyone is shouting no one owns IP addresses, but that is proof by assertion. Yelling louder doesnt make it so. Neither does ARINs assertions or their policies. What would establish IP addresses as some sort of ARIN-owned and licensed community property? Well, winning a court case like this, or congress passing a law. Frankly, those who want ARINs ownership of IP addresses to be established, should hope Kremens put on a good case here, to establish a nice solid precedent. Who cares about when CIDR came out? It was background information and not really material to the case. Kremens was the victim of a very nasty fraud. People are acting like hes a bad guy, when, in fact, he was a victim of one of the worst cases of domain hijacking, and his original case is one that we rely on for protection today. There is a strong argument to be made for ownership of IP addressing and subsequently trading address space as a commodity, with ARIN as a commodity exchange and clearinghouse. Is this reaction people hating lawyers more than ARIN, or what? - Daniel Golding From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe mcguckin Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:37 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?] I read the complaint. I don't like the fact that a lot of my friends are named in the suit, but I think there are some points worth discussing within the community: 1) IP address blocks are not 'property' Domains are not property. The assignee of a domain has no ownership interest Network Solutions made this same argument years ago. That was their shield against lawsuits when negligence (or worse) on NetSols part would cause a domain to be erroneously transferred. When mistakes were made, Network Solutions was notoriously unwilling to reverse the transaction to correct the error. Then they got sued for refusing to reverse a fradulent domain transfer, and they lost. The case had the side effect of setting the precedent that domains *are* in fact tangible property. Now when a registrar or registry makes a mistake, they can be legally held responsible. (What case was that? Kremen v. Network Solutions) I would say that's an improvement. 2) Why does ARIN believe that it can ignore a court order? 3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this: Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum. If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best use of it. Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] 650-207-0372 cell 650-213-1302 office 650-969-2124 fax
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Nick, You make an incorrect assumption - that IP addresses are currently free (they are not, in either money or time) and that commoditizing them will increase their cost (there is significant evidence it will not). If I have the choice between paying $500 for a /24 of PI space or going to my upstreams, getting IP space, applying to ARIN for a /22 of PI space, eventually numbering out of the PA space - how much money have I spent? - Daniel Golding -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Nicks Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?] The real fundamental flaw with this free-market approach to handling IP assignments is the fact that it will further create an environment where smaller (start-ups, small businesses) entities trying to acquire PI space will face insurmountable challenges (eg, financial). While I think the majority of people these days would agree that the free-market approach to economics is definitely the best, certain resources are not very applicable to be traded in a free-market environment. I myself do not like over-bureaucratic processes, and while all of us at one time or another have complained about ARIN's procedures, policies, and practices, the purpose they serve is a needed one. Best Regards, -Michael -- Michael Nicks Network Engineer KanREN e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] o: +1-785-856-9800 x221 m: +1-913-378-6516 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this: Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum. If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best use of it. I think you're dead-on there, but you forget who you're really trying to convince. It'll happen eventually but in the meantime the greybeards who were largely responsible for the Internet as we know it (and who by and large still wield significant influence if not still stewardship) will be dragged there kicking and screaming from their academic/pseudo-Marxist ideals, some of whom seem to still resent the commercialization of the Internet. It's also hard to see the faults in the system when you are insulated by your position as member of the politburo. The flip side of the coin of course is that if you let the free market reign on IP's, you may price developing countries right off the Internet which I don't think anyone sees as a desirable outcome. There's sure to be a happy middle ground that people smarter than I will figure out, and maybe it takes a silly lawsuit such as this to kick things off. Andrew Cruse
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On September 8, 2006 at 09:06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Ghali) wrote: People who use the courts as a way to bleed their targets like this are vermin. Not surprising at all that this is all about some domain-squatting nonsense. If a lawyer, any lawyer, sits you down in his office, looks you square in the eyes, and says Don't let them get away with that! my advice is leap up and run as if you are running for your life because indeed you are. A client's moral outrage and lust for revenge are an attorney's stock-in-trade. -- -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On September 8, 2006 at 16:28 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fergie) wrote: I like how Jack Bates framed it: The IP address space is a community asset and as such, the allocation of it needs to be done in a way which serves benefits the Internet community at-large. Which would form a strong analogy to the FCC's original legal justification for existence in 1934 which was that the radio spectrum is a limited, public trust and as such the FCC is given the power to regulate it and its contents in the public's interest (and, hence, to regulate content in the public interest.) I would be very careful what I wish for. Fortunately IPv6 could be a counter-balance to any claims of jurisdiction based on limited address space though perhaps the camel's nose will get into the tent first; in theory all address space is finite, even if vast. It's hard to imagine power over content achieved based on IPv4's limited address space would be later yielded for IPv6 any more than the tiny spectrum space of 1934 was ever yielded due to the vast expansion of spectrum afforded by subsequent improved technology. -- -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Tony Li wrote: And the same way that government forced telephone number portability, I foresee one day government requiring IP number portability among ISPs in order to increase competition. So all those SWIPS and PA assignments in ARIN/RIPE/APNIc may one day be used to allow Acme Nail with their /29 assignment to leave ISP A and move to ISP B. Legislators have been known to make more idiotic laws and regulations so don't think it couldn't happen. -Hank Nussbacher http://www.interall.co.il Another somewhat important point is that we also need to conserve routing entries. If you make a market for addresses without regard to routability, you risk creating a situation where you flood the world with /32's. No thanks. Tony
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Hank Nussbacher wrote: And the same way that government forced telephone number portability, I foresee one day government requiring IP number portability among ISPs in order to increase competition. So all those SWIPS and PA assignments in ARIN/RIPE/APNIc may one day be used to allow Acme Nail with their /29 assignment to leave ISP A and move to ISP B. Legislators have been known to make more idiotic laws and regulations so don't think it couldn't happen. Customers already have portability. It's called DNS. IP addresses aren't published in the big web rolodexes. They don't need their IP address to stay with them. pt
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Chris Jester wrote: I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest case regarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the way IP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. Anyone have experiences like are said in the lawsuit? I would love to know if this is true or not. Anyone with negative ARIN experiences that relate to the lawsuit, please let me know, thanks! For thos interested, you may read this lawsuit here: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:44uxmnEmJVkJ:www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf+Kremen+Vs+ARINhl=engl=usct=clnkcd=1 Or google for Kremen VS Arin Chris Jester Suavemente, INC. SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845 AIM: NJesterIII ICQ: 64791506 Chris Jester Suavemente, INC. SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845 AIM: NJesterIII ICQ: 64791506 NOTICE - This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only for the use of the person to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail in error. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or dealing in any way whatsoever with this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately by way of advice to us. It is the addressee/recipient duty to virus scan and otherwise test the information provided before loading onto any computer system. Suavemente, INC. does not warrant that the information is free of a virus or any other defect or error. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Suavemente, INC. This could be fairly interesting. One bit that did stick out is II. A. 25 (I don't know what the proper notation for this should be), Recently a new form of Internet addressing has emerged, called Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). In this new addressing protocol, a CIDR network address could look like this: 190.30.250.00/21. The prefix is the address of the network, or gateway, and the number after the slash indicates the size of the network. The higher the number, the more host space that is in the network. Well, last I checked, 1993 wasn't recent, and those last two sentences were quite a mistake. Cheers, jonathan
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Two questions regarding thisfor the list (slightly OT):1) Has any sort of IP address ownership precedence been set in a US court?2) Isn't ARIN considered a non-profit resource management/allocation organization? To my knowledge, there is no marketplace for IPs. Thanks!-brandonOn 9/8/06, Chris Jester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest caseregarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the wayIP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. Anyone have experiences like are said in the lawsuit? I would loveto know if this is true or not.Anyone with negative ARIN experiencesthat relate to the lawsuit, please let me know, thanks!For thos interested, you may read this lawsuit here: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:44uxmnEmJVkJ:www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf+Kremen+Vs+ARINhl=engl=usct=clnkcd=1 Or google for Kremen VS ArinChris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506Chris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506NOTICE - This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential andare only for the use of the person to whom they are addressed. If you arenot the intended recipient you have received this e-mail in error. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or dealing in any waywhatsoever with this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis e-mail in error, please reply immediately by way of advice to us. It is the addressee/recipient duty to virus scan and otherwise test theinformation provided before loading onto any computer system. Suavemente,INC.does not warrant that the information is free of a virus or any other defect or error. Any views expressed in this message are those of theindividual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to bethe views of Suavemente, INC. -- Brandon GalbraithEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]AIM: brandong00Voice: 630.400.6992A true pirate starts drinking before the sun hits the yard-arm. Ya. --thelost
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Interesting read. http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf#search=%22kremen%20vs%20arin%22 I found this little gem in the The Internet, IP addresses and Domain Names section: --- Recently a new form of Internet addressing has emerged, called Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). In this new addressing protocol, a CIDR network address could look like this: 193.30.250.00/21. The prefix is the address of the network, or gateway, and the number after the slash indicates the size of the network. The higher the number, the more host space that is in the network(2). ... --- (2) later contradicts this statement. Maybe I should sell them some /32's, or why not a few /128's. Or maybe I just have too much time on my hands. /Tony On 08/09/06, Chris Jester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest caseregarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the wayIP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. Anyone have experiences like are said in the lawsuit? I would loveto know if this is true or not.Anyone with negative ARIN experiencesthat relate to the lawsuit, please let me know, thanks!For thos interested, you may read this lawsuit here: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:44uxmnEmJVkJ:www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf+Kremen+Vs+ARINhl=engl=usct=clnkcd=1 Or google for Kremen VS ArinChris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506Chris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506NOTICE - This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential andare only for the use of the person to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail in error. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or dealing in any waywhatsoever with this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis e-mail in error, please reply immediately by way of advice to us. It is the addressee/recipient duty to virus scan and otherwise test theinformation provided before loading onto any computer system. Suavemente,INC.does not warrant that the information is free of a virus or any other defect or error. Any views expressed in this message are those of theindividual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to bethe views of Suavemente, INC. -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, I couldn't help it, it's my nature =-
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest case regarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the way IP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. My personal opinion is that this is yet another example of ignorance leading to anger leading to a stupid waste of court time. The case is filled with incorrect statements of fact which ARIN can easily demolish. But at the bottom line, these people are complaining because ARIN didn't let them use some IP addresses that were assigned to a different company. Since IP addresses are basically available free from any ISP who sells Internet access services, this seems like a severe error in judgement on the part of the plaintiff. A smart businessperson would have used the free IP addresses to keep their business online even if they did decide to dispute ARIN's decision. But in the end, IP addresses are not property, therefore they cannot be assets and cannot be transferred. They can only be kept if they are in use on network assets which are transferred and which continue to be operational. And even then, most people have no choice as to which specific address block they use. They simply take what the ISP gives them. I personally suspect that ARIN will have this thrown out of court in fairly short order. Even if it did go much further, the parallels with NANPA would see it fade away quite quickly. This discussion really belongs on http://www.groklaw.net/ where I note it has not yet appeared. Perhaps another indication that this is a tempest in a teapot. --Michael Dillon
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
If it gets to trial, I can see all kinds of stunts.. A jury trial on a highly technical issue? We hope that ma and pa non-computer literate owners are not on the jury But I think Michael is right, too many technical errors and less than accurate statements. Someone does not understand what is going on and wrote an interesting read of a case... Later, J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 7:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?] I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest case regarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the way IP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. My personal opinion is that this is yet another example of ignorance leading to anger leading to a stupid waste of court time. The case is filled with incorrect statements of fact which ARIN can easily demolish. But at the bottom line, these people are complaining because ARIN didn't let them use some IP addresses that were assigned to a different company. Since IP addresses are basically available free from any ISP who sells Internet access services, this seems like a severe error in judgement on the part of the plaintiff. A smart businessperson would have used the free IP addresses to keep their business online even if they did decide to dispute ARIN's decision. But in the end, IP addresses are not property, therefore they cannot be assets and cannot be transferred. They can only be kept if they are in use on network assets which are transferred and which continue to be operational. And even then, most people have no choice as to which specific address block they use. They simply take what the ISP gives them. I personally suspect that ARIN will have this thrown out of court in fairly short order. Even if it did go much further, the parallels with NANPA would see it fade away quite quickly. This discussion really belongs on http://www.groklaw.net/ where I note it has not yet appeared. Perhaps another indication that this is a tempest in a teapot. --Michael Dillon
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since IP addresses are basically available free from any ISP who sells Internet access services, this seems In small quantities, and which tie you to particular providers. Shells of companies have been bought (or just claimed) for their large, especially pre-ARIN, PI-IP assignments. To a young ISP, a /16 for example may seem like a lifetime supply of IP space, and save the company many thousands of dollars (ARIN registration fees) and paperwork hassles. News of this case has been sent here before (by [EMAIL PROTECTED] back in July). Is anything really happening with the case? -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
This is Gary Kremen owner of SEX dot com.cohen stole sex.com from kremen and kremen sued and got it back - it looks like he is trying to force arin to give him cohen's IP assignments sounds like a grudge match - but it is a shame that he might do arin collateral damage =The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) Back Issues: http://www.cookreport.com/browse_past_free2.shtml Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog http://gordoncook.net/wp/ Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml= On Sep 8, 2006, at 5:36 AM, tony sarendal wrote: Interesting read. http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf#search=%22kremen%20vs%20arin%22I found this little gem in the "The Internet, IP addresses and Domain Names" section: --- Recently a new form of Internet addressing has emerged, called Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). In this new addressing protocol, a CIDR network address could look like this: 193.30.250.00/21. The prefix is the address of the network, or gateway, and the number after the slash indicates the size of the network. The higher the number, the more host space that is in the network(2). ... --- (2) later contradicts this statement. Maybe I should sell them some /32's, or why not a few /128's. Or maybe I just have too much time on my hands. /Tony On 08/09/06, Chris Jester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest caseregarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the wayIP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. Anyone have experiences like are said in the lawsuit? I would loveto know if this is true or not. Anyone with negative ARIN experiencesthat relate to the lawsuit, please let me know, thanks!For thos interested, you may read this lawsuit here: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:44uxmnEmJVkJ:www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf+Kremen+Vs+ARINhl=engl=usct=clnkcd=1 Or google for Kremen VS ArinChris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506Chris JesterSuavemente, INC.SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845AIM: NJesterCQ: 64791506NOTICE - This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential andare only for the use of the person to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail in error. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or dealing in any waywhatsoever with this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis e-mail in error, please reply immediately by way of advice to us. It is the addressee/recipient duty to virus scan and otherwise test theinformation provided before loading onto any computer system. Suavemente,INC.does not warrant that the information is free of a virus or any other defect or error. Any views expressed in this message are those of theindividual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to bethe views of Suavemente, INC. -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Jon Lewis wrote: In small quantities, and which tie you to particular providers. Shells of companies have been bought (or just claimed) for their large, especially pre-ARIN, PI-IP assignments. To a young ISP, a /16 for example may seem like a lifetime supply of IP space, and save the company many thousands of dollars (ARIN registration fees) and paperwork hassles. Actually, their issue is that ARIN would only transfer the netblock to them under the condition of them signing the contract (which effectively states that ARIN controls the netblocks). They would also be liable for the annual fees. They are trying to treat IP address space as property which they own, and refuse to agree to ARIN registration/fees to obtain what they feel is their property. Unfortunately, while ARIN is a steward and technically does not *own* the IP address space, neither does the ISP that uses the space. The defendant apparently misses the fact that IP space is a community asset and is thus handled by the community. IANAL, but I doubt they can prove Antitrust in this case. If only we could handle other limited resources in the world as effectively; including BGP routing table bloat. -Jack
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Thus spake Brandon Galbraith Two questions regarding thisfor the list (slightly OT): 1) Has any sort of IP address ownership precedence been set in a US court? Not that I'm aware of, but I've never looked. I'm sure ARIN's lawyers have. 2) Isn't ARIN considered a non-profit resource management/allocation organization? To my knowledge, there is no marketplace for IPs. The entire suit is predicated on the concept that IP addresses can be owned and traded like other property. The rest is a house of cards that will fall if ARIN can prove that to be incorrect -- and will probably stand if they can't. Also, any technical expert can rip about half of the house down without breaking a sweat because it's so flawed to the point of being entertaining. It'd be fun to read the transcripts if this ever goes to trial, but my money says it'll be decided one way or the other before it actually makes it into a courtroom. The wording of Kremen's argument made me understand why ARIN is so resistant to using the term rent for their activities, because that implies that there is property exchanging hands. Courts have jurisdiction over property, though it's a minefield to try to dictate who someone must rent to. Keeping the words in registry-speak allows them to differentiate the situation and insist that addresses are not property at all. The anti-trust angle is interesting, but even if ARIN were found to be one, it's hard to convince people that a _non-profit_ monopoly acting in the public interest is a bad thing. The debate there will be around the preferential treatment that larger ARIN members get (in terms of larger allocations, lower per address fees, etc), which Kremen construes as being anticompetitive via creating artificial barriers to entry. That may end up being changed. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
The debate there will be around the preferential treatment that larger ARIN members get (in terms of larger allocations, lower per address fees, etc), which Kremen construes as being anticompetitive via creating artificial barriers to entry. That may end up being changed. Your statement about preferential treatment is factually incorrect. Larger ARIN members do not get larger allocations. It is the larger network infrastructures that get the larger allocations which is not directly tied to the size of the company. Yes, larger companies often have larger infrastructures. However, ARIN gives the addresses based primarily on the number of hosts attached to the network infrastructure. It has been argued in the past that ARIN's policies are prejudiced AGAINST larger organizations because the rules do not properly allow for the scaling overhead necessary due to the complexity of larger networks. As for fees, there are no per-address fees and there never have been. When we created ARIN, we paid special attention to this point because we did not want to create the erroneous impression that people were buying IP addresses. The fees are related to the amount of effort required to service an organization and that is not directly connected to the number of addresses. --Michael Dillon (no longer in any official ARIN capacity. Just another member)
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in the end, IP addresses are not property, therefore they cannot be assets and cannot be transferred. They can only be kept if they are in use on network assets which are transferred and which continue to be operational. And even then, most people have no choice as to which specific address block they use. They simply take what the ISP gives them. One could probably debate that statement for a long time. Saying they are free to me is technically inaccurate. If you are getting PI space, you have to pay registration fees, which incurs cost on behalf of the party. A growing number of ISPs are now charging leasing fees or similar fees for the usage of PA addresses. As IP address scarcity goes up, I wouldn't be surprised if leasing fees become higher and/or if ARIN fees become more steep as an attempt to weed out people who are trying to horde address space. While IP addresses certainly are not a tangible asset, and a defined intrinsic value can not be determined, there does seem to be a value to them, if only speculative at best. Best Regards, -Michael -- Michael Nicks Network Engineer KanREN e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] o: +1-785-856-9800 x221 m: +1-913-378-6516
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest case regarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the way IP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. My personal opinion is that this is yet another example of ignorance leading to anger leading to a stupid waste of court time. [...] On this, we agree. :-) - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Gordon Cook wrote: This is Gary Kremen owner of SEX dot com. cohen stole sex.com from kremen and kremen sued and got it back - it looks like he is trying to force arin to give him cohen's IP assignments sounds like a grudge match - but it is a shame that he might do arin collateral damage Yes, at the least, wasting huge piles of ARIN's money on legal fees; which is likely Kremen's entire intent, to teach them a lesson for not handing over what he wanted. People who use the courts as a way to bleed their targets like this are vermin. Not surprising at all that this is all about some domain-squatting nonsense. I do hope that ARIN can convince the judge to issue a summary judgement to throw this entire case out. matto [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Hopefully ARIN can recover their legal fees, so cash from members can be spent on IP space management.-brandonOn 9/8/06, Matt Ghali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Gordon Cook wrote: This is GaryKremen owner of SEX dot com. cohen stole sex.com from kremen and kremen sued and got it back - it looks like he is trying to force arin to give him cohen's IP assignmentssounds like a grudge match - but it is a shame that he might do arin collateral damageYes, at the least, wasting huge piles of ARIN's money on legal fees;which is likely Kremen's entire intent, to teach them a lesson fornot handing over what he wanted.People who use the courts as a way to bleed their targets like this are vermin. Not surprising at all that this is all about somedomain-squatting nonsense.I do hope that ARIN can convince the judge to issue a summaryjudgement to throw this entire case out.matto [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan -- Brandon GalbraithEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]AIM: brandong00Voice: 630.400.6992A true pirate starts drinking before the sun hits the yard-arm. Ya. --thelost
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Matt Ghali wrote: Yes, at the least, wasting huge piles of ARIN's money on legal fees; which is likely Kremen's entire intent, to teach them a lesson for not handing over what he wanted. Correction. Wasting huge piles of our money. I was hoping the money would go towards a new template, too! -Jack
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
The complaint was, at best, an entertaining read. IANAL. As was mentioned earlier, it looks like Kremen's whole case is built on a number of false assumptions: 1. Netblocks are the property of the organization once their assignment request is approved by ARIN or other RIR. Since this is false, the none of the parties involved in Kremen v. Cohen would have legal standing to make the transfer of Cohen's netblocks a condition of satisfying the judgment in that case. 2. There is an open market for buying and selling IP addresses. While ISPs can and sometimes do charge fees to their customers to use a block of PA space, they cannot do the same on an 'open' market. The customer normally may use the PA space until their business relationship with the ISP is terminated, i.e. the space is non-portable. 3. ARIN's policies discriminate against smaller providers by preventing them from getting larger netblocks. Going back to 1997 from what I can find, ARIN's address assignment policies have always advocated a pay-as-you-go model. If an organization gets close to using all of their assigned addresses, they can request another block once they've provided justification that the first assignment has been efficiently used. The complaint acknowledges that IP addresses are finite resources and that macro-allocation of address ranges is handled by ICANN. 4. Recently... Classless Inter-Domain Routing or CIDR... As others have mentioned, this is hilarious. I guess I'll have to upgrade my routers to use that newfangled routing protocol, BGP4 CIDR had a huge impact in putting the brakes on wasteful IP address allocation. The days of /16s being available pretty much for the asking are long gone. 5. Providing information to justify an assignment or transfer request will force the requestor to reveal information that is confidential and proprietary. The way I see it, this helps maintain some degree of transparency of ARIN's policies, customer business names and addresses are items that are probably already matters of public record from domain name registrations and so forth. Also, the information provided to ARIN when requesting more space is normally more detailed than what is required to be made public through SWIP or RWHOIS. The information specifically submitted to ARIN for proving a request is justified is not released to the public. jms
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
-- Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The entire suit is predicated on the concept that IP addresses can be owned and traded like other property. The rest is a house of cards that will fall if ARIN can prove that to be incorrect -- and will probably stand if they can't. [snip] I like how Jack Bates framed it: The IP address space is a community asset and as such, the allocation of it needs to be done in a way which serves benefits the Internet community at-large. That said, we have had this discussion many times over the years, especially within IEPG discussions, and punching holes in CIDR blocks, for the sake of alighning address space w.r.t. special interests (as opposed to some sanity in allocation policy which attempts to preserve allocation to allow CIDR aggregation) is a Bad Thing. It will be interesing to see how this plays out... - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
I read the complaint. I don't like the fact that a lot of my friends are named in the suit, but I think there are somepoints worth discussing within the community:1) IP address blocks are not 'property' "Domains are not property. The assignee of a domain has no ownership interest" Network Solutions made this same argument years ago. That was their shield against lawsuits when negligence (or worse) on NetSols part would cause a domain to be erroneously transferred. When mistakes were made, Network Solutions was notoriously unwilling to reverse the transaction to correct the error. Then they got sued for refusing to reverse a fradulent domain transfer, and they lost. The case had the side effect of setting the precedent that domains *are* in fact tangible property. Now when a registrar or registry makes a mistake, they can be legally held responsible. (What case was that? Kremen v. Network Solutions) I would say that's an improvement.2) Why does ARIN believe that it can ignore a court order?3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this: Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum. If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best use of it.Joe McGuckinViaNet Communications[EMAIL PROTECTED]650-207-0372 cell650-213-1302 office650-969-2124 fax
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this: Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum. If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best use of it. I think you're dead-on there, but you forget who you're really trying to convince. It'll happen eventually but in the meantime the greybeards who were largely responsible for theInternet as we know it (and who by and large still wieldsignificant influence if not still stewardship) will be dragged there kicking and screaming from their academic/pseudo-Marxist ideals, some of whom seem to still resent the commercialization of the Internet. It's also hard to see the faults in the system when you are insulated by your position as member of the politburo. The flip side of the coin of course is that if you let the free market reign on IP's, you may price developing countries right off the Internet which I don't think anyone sees as a desirable outcome. There's sure to be a happy middle ground that people smarter than I will figure out, and maybe it takes a silly lawsuit such as this to kick things off. Andrew Cruse
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this: Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum. If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best use of it. I think you're dead-on there, but you forget who you're really trying to convince. It'll happen eventually but in the meantime the greybeards who were largely responsible for theInternet as we know it (and who by and large still wieldsignificant influence if not still stewardship) will be dragged there kicking and screaming from their academic/pseudo-Marxist ideals, some of whom seem to still resent the commercialization of the Internet. It's also hard to see the faults in the system when you are insulated by your position as member of the politburo. The flip side of the coin of course is that if you let the free market reign on IP's, you may price developing countries right off the Internet which I don't think anyone sees as a desirable outcome. There's sure to be a happy middle ground that people smarter than I will figure out, and maybe it takes a silly lawsuit such as this to kick things off. Andrew Cruse Another somewhat important point is thatwe also needto conserve routing entries. If you make a market for addresses without regard to routability, you risk creating a situation where you flood the world with /32's. No thanks. Tony
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ I said ] The debate there will be around the preferential treatment that larger ARIN members get (in terms of larger allocations, lower per address fees, etc), which Kremen construes as being anticompetitive via creating artificial barriers to entry. That may end up being changed. Your statement about preferential treatment is factually incorrect. Larger ARIN members do not get larger allocations. It is the larger network infrastructures that get the larger allocations which is not directly tied to the size of the company. Yes, larger companies often have larger infrastructures. And that's the point: A company that is established gets preferential treatment over one that is not; that is called a barrier to entry by the anti-trust crowd. You may feel that such a barrier is justified and fair, but those on the other side of it (or more importantly, their lawyers) are likely to disagree. As for fees, there are no per-address fees and there never have been. When we created ARIN, we paid special attention to this point because we did not want to create the erroneous impression that people were buying IP addresses. The fees are related to the amount of effort required to service an organization and that is not directly connected to the number of addresses. Of course it's directly connected; all you have to do is look at the current fee schedule and you'll see: /24 = $4.88/IP /23 = $2.44/IP /22 = $1.22/IP /21 = $0.61/IP /20 = $0.55/IP /19 = $0.27/IP /18 = $0.27/IP /17 = $0.137/IP /16 = $0.069/IP /15 = $0.069/IP /14 = $0.034/IP So, just between the two ends of the fee schedule, we have a difference of _two orders of magnitude_ in how much an registrant pays divided by how much address space they get. Smaller folks may use this to say that larger ISPs, some of whose employees sit on the ARIN BOT/AC, are using ARIN to make it difficult for competitors to enter the market. Since that argument appears to be true _on the surface_, ARIN will need to show how servicing smaller ISPs incurs higher costs per address and thus the lower fees for large allocations are simply passing along the savings from economy of scale. Doable, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for coming up with that proof. Besides the above, Kremen also points out that larger prefixes are more likely to be routed, therefore refusing to grant larger prefixes (which aren't justified, in ARIN's view) is another barrier to entry. Again, since the folks deciding these policies are, by and large, folks who are already major players in the market, it's easy to put an anticometitive slant on that. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
The real fundamental flaw with this free-market approach to handling IP assignments is the fact that it will further create an environment where smaller (start-ups, small businesses) entities trying to acquire PI space will face insurmountable challenges (eg, financial). While I think the majority of people these days would agree that the free-market approach to economics is definitely the best, certain resources are not very applicable to be traded in a free-market environment. I myself do not like over-bureaucratic processes, and while all of us at one time or another have complained about ARIN's procedures, policies, and practices, the purpose they serve is a needed one. Best Regards, -Michael -- Michael Nicks Network Engineer KanREN e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] o: +1-785-856-9800 x221 m: +1-913-378-6516 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this: Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum. If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best use of it. I think you're dead-on there, but you forget who you're really trying to convince. It'll happen eventually but in the meantime the greybeards who were largely responsible for the Internet as we know it (and who by and large still wield significant influence if not still stewardship) will be dragged there kicking and screaming from their academic/pseudo-Marxist ideals, some of whom seem to still resent the commercialization of the Internet. It's also hard to see the faults in the system when you are insulated by your position as member of the politburo. The flip side of the coin of course is that if you let the free market reign on IP's, you may price developing countries right off the Internet which I don't think anyone sees as a desirable outcome. There's sure to be a happy middle ground that people smarter than I will figure out, and maybe it takes a silly lawsuit such as this to kick things off. Andrew Cruse
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
3) What's wrong with treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of precedent for this: Mineral rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum. If a given commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free market in encouraging consumers to conserve and make the best use of it. I think you're dead-on there, but you forget who you're really trying to convince. It'll happen eventually but in the meantime the greybeards who were largely responsible for theInternet as we know it (and who by and large still wieldsignificant influence if not still stewardship) will be dragged there kicking and screaming from their academic/pseudo-Marxist ideals, some of whom seem to still resent the commercialization of the Internet. It's also hard to see the faults in the system when you are insulated by your position as member of the politburo. The flip side of the coin of course is that if you let the free market reign on IP's, you may price developing countries right off the Internet which I don't think anyone sees as a desirable outcome. There's sure to be a happy middle ground that people smarter than I will figure out, and maybe it takes a silly lawsuit such as this to kick things off. Andrew Cruse Another somewhat important point is thatwe also needto conserve routing entries. If you make a market for addresses without regard to routability, you risk creating a situation where you flood the world with /32's. No thanks. Tony I would think that would tend to police itself. Even now with things as they are you're going to have serious reachability problems if you try to announce anything smaller than a /24. And if routing tables suddenly explode, I'd expect that threshold to quickly move in reaction. Andrew Cruse
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ I said ] The debate there will be around the preferential treatment that larger ARIN members get (in terms of larger allocations, lower per address fees, etc), which Kremen construes as being anticompetitive via creating artificial barriers to entry. That may end up being changed. Your statement about preferential treatment is factually incorrect. Larger ARIN members do not get larger allocations. It is the larger network infrastructures that get the larger allocations which is not directly tied to the size of the company. Yes, larger companies often have larger infrastructures. And that's the point: A company that is established gets preferential treatment over one that is not; that is called a barrier to entry by the anti-trust crowd. You may feel that such a barrier is justified and fair, but those on the other side of it (or more importantly, their lawyers) are likely to disagree. As for fees, there are no per-address fees and there never have been. When we created ARIN, we paid special attention to this point because we did not want to create the erroneous impression that people were buying IP addresses. The fees are related to the amount of effort required to service an organization and that is not directly connected to the number of addresses. Of course it's directly connected; all you have to do is look at the current fee schedule and you'll see: /24 = $4.88/IP /23 = $2.44/IP /22 = $1.22/IP /21 = $0.61/IP /20 = $0.55/IP /19 = $0.27/IP /18 = $0.27/IP /17 = $0.137/IP /16 = $0.069/IP /15 = $0.069/IP /14 = $0.034/IP While the price points quoted may be accurate, they don't really reflect the pricing tiers in use at ARIN and I notice you completely ignore the fact that no matter how much more than a /14 you have, you pay $18,000 and additional allocations don't really cost anything. Further, the prices you suggest refer to registration fees for ISPs, but, the current fee schedule if you are NOT an ISP is a bit different (end user subscriber): /24 = $100/year /23 = $100/year /22 = $100/year /21 = $100/year ... /8 = $100/year etc. So, just between the two ends of the fee schedule, we have a difference of _two orders of magnitude_ in how much an registrant pays divided by how much address space they get. Smaller folks may use this to say that larger ISPs, some of whose employees sit on the ARIN BOT/AC, are using ARIN to make it difficult for competitors to enter the market. Since you are paying for registration services and not for the IPs themselves, that is perfectly reasonable. End users registration needs are simple, thus, the $100/year flat fee. ISPs do some volume of sub-assignment registration and as a result, the larger the network, the more registration effort involved. However, the effort does not scale linearly with the address space and the fee structure reflects this. Since that argument appears to be true _on the surface_, ARIN will need to show how servicing smaller ISPs incurs higher costs per address and thus the lower fees for large allocations are simply passing along the savings from economy of scale. Doable, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for coming up with that proof. I don't even think it is all that difficult. Especially given the end-user fees. Besides the above, Kremen also points out that larger prefixes are more likely to be routed, therefore refusing to grant larger prefixes (which aren't justified, in ARIN's view) is another barrier to entry. Again, since the folks deciding these policies are, by and large, folks who are already major players in the market, it's easy to put an anticometitive slant on that. It is my experience that any prefix within ARIN policy is generally equally routable. I would say that in my experience, Kremen's assertion in this area is false. Additionally, the characterization of the ARIN policy process is largely detached from reality. While the BoT technically has final and complete authority, I cannot recall a situation in which a policy with consensus was not accepted by the board, nor can I recall a situation where the board adopted a policy without consensus. Since the public policy meetings and mailing lists where consensus is judged are open to any interested party, it is very hard to view this as an anti-competitive act in my opinion. Owen PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Don't be so sure. What probably _would_ police these willy-nilly announcements, however, are prefix-length filters on the various ISP routers. :-) And again, this could certainly lend itself to folks sic'ing their lawyers on eacvh other in the name of anti-competitive lawsuits. A mess ensues that I don't think any of us wishes to see happen. - ferg -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another somewhat important point is that we also need to conserve routing entries. If you make a market for addresses without regard to routability, you risk creating a situation where you flood the world with /32's. No thanks. Tony I would think that would tend to police itself. Even now with things as they are you're going to have serious reachability problems if you try to announce anything smaller than a /24. And if routing tables suddenly explode, I'd expect that threshold to quickly move in reaction. -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
Chris, The first item they need is a Network Engineer. You do not have actual IP addresses for servers you have DNS entries. In my non legal opinion the individual filling suit is out money because of there lack of understanding of DNS entries versus IP addresses. You can resolve thousands of web sites to one IP address if you want to or get another block of IP addresses from ARIN and resolve the other addresses to the newly assigned addresses. It appears from the filing that they do not understand how DNS works since with an appropriately designed zone structure there would be no issues. This lawsuit is about the stupidity of the plaintiff and not about IP address management. If any organization owns the IP addresses it is the registries and they only lease them out to organizations for a nominal fee to provide order and security for the Internet. ICANN for other issues and ARIN for addresses bend over backwards to have large ISPs and multinationals go through the same short process as any other requester of IP addresses and have only one policy. And if you have ever attended an ARIN meeting point out of the 100 to several hundred high opinionated individuals who attend which ones control it for their own economic benefit. Send this legal team a copy of Comer's books on TCP/IP and Cricket Liu's book on DNS and BIND. I take the Comer books back they would not understand them so give them Uyless Black's books they are more clueless friendly. John (ISDN) Lee Chris Jester wrote: I am looking for anyone who has input on possibly the largest case regarding internet numbering ever. This lawsuit may change the way IP's are governed and adminstered. Comments on or off list please. Anyone have experiences like are said in the lawsuit? I would love to know if this is true or not. Anyone with negative ARIN experiences that relate to the lawsuit, please let me know, thanks! For thos interested, you may read this lawsuit here: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:44uxmnEmJVkJ:www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/kremen.pdf+Kremen+Vs+ARINhl=engl=usct=clnkcd=1 Or google for Kremen VS Arin Chris Jester Suavemente, INC. SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845 AIM: NJesterIII ICQ: 64791506 Chris Jester Suavemente, INC. SplitInfinity Networks 619-227-8845 AIM: NJesterIII ICQ: 64791506 NOTICE - This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only for the use of the person to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail in error. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or dealing in any way whatsoever with this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply immediately by way of advice to us. It is the addressee/recipient duty to virus scan and otherwise test the information provided before loading onto any computer system. Suavemente, INC. does not warrant that the information is free of a virus or any other defect or error. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Suavemente, INC.
