On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alex Rubenstein:
b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business agreement,
and is leaving NAC voluntarily.
The customer probably has a different opinion on this particular
topic, doesn't he?
No. This is a clear situation
Michel Py wrote:
In short: drop the monkey on ARIN's back. The issue that
non-portable blocks are indeed non-portable is ARIN's to
deal with, and partly why we are giving money to them.
Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
I wonder why ARIN, or even more importantly, ICANN has
not jumped all over
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
No. This is a clear situation where the customer has canceled his service
with us in writing.
Ok, important point.
b) In regards to your passage, because the customer just appears to be
another multi-homed customer of yours, this is a key point.
harm, since the space is not
something that can be replaced.
-vb
- Original Message -
From: Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 29
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the
temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret
ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this
policy were to stand, what prevents
VJB Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:33:28 -0400
VJB From: Vincent J. Bono
VJB I think one avenue of approach will be to see if ARIN would
VJB grant you another contiguous block to replace not just what
VJB the customer got but the entire block they have polluted.
I thought of that, too. However,
JL Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
JL From: Jon Lewis
JL If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know.
I don't know the rogue netblock, but
http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001
may prove insightful. I believe there are people who track
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
JL Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
JL From: Jon Lewis
JL If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know.
I don't know the rogue netblock, but
http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001
More likely
VJB From: Vincent J. Bono
VJB I think one avenue of approach will be to see if
VJB ARIN would grant you another contiguous block to
VJB replace not just what the customer got but the
VJB entire block they have polluted.
Edward B. Dreger
I thought of that, too. However, that would require
NAC
william(at)elan.net
I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653),
Good catch William!
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced litigator,
the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene
formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be striving to
educate the court to understand more accurately the legal and policy
On Jun 29, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Ray Plzak wrote:
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced
litigator,
the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either
intervene
formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be
striving to
educate the court to
Bravo.
- ferg
-- Ray Plzak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced
litigator, the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to
either intervene formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus.
ARIN will be striving to educate the court
william(at)elan.net wrote:
I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653),
Michel Py wrote:
Good catch William!
Dan Hollis wrote:
This pegasus? http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html
Yeah.
Michel.
Only one customer? There are a couple consulting firms in
particular around here that use arbitrary space on internal
networks. Sometimes a currently-dark IP block is configured, so
it works for us. It gets annoying after a while.
The worst one I've seen so far is Ticketmaster... last
At 3:29 PM -0400 6/25/04, Eric Gauthier wrote:
Only one customer? There are a couple consulting firms in
particular around here that use arbitrary space on internal
networks. Sometimes a currently-dark IP block is configured, so
it works for us. It gets annoying after a while.
The worst
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 06:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:48:14 MDT, John Neiberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IANAL, but it appears that from a contractual perspective it is clear
that ARIN retains all 'ownership' rights to the address space. They
subdivide it to those
At 7:29 PM -0400 6/23/04, Robert Blayzor wrote:
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination.
Were I the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned
telephone number portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain
what additional work had
On Jun 22, 2004, at 10:40 PM, David Schwartz wrote:
IANAL, seek competent legal advice from a lawyer with experience in
this
area. I'm sure you can work out some sort of compromise where you let
them
keep using their IP space for a reasonable period of time (3 months? 6
months?) and they
David,
Isn't renumbering an obligation?
I wonder if their ARIN application says anything about planning to
renumber their existing space from NAC into the newly assigned space...
-davidu
David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net
David,
Isn't renumbering an obligation?
I wonder if their ARIN application says anything about planning to
renumber their existing space from NAC into the newly assigned space...
-davidu
It's hard to see how his customer failing to meet obligations to ARIN is
going to be
On Jun 22, 2004, at 11:10 PM, Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
David,
Isn't renumbering an obligation?
I am not sure however RFC 2071 Touches on this subject in section 4.2.3
but is ambiguous as to the nature of when the renumber should take
place.
4.2.3 Change of Internet Service Provider
As
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce
non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their
choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier
[that the space is assigned
This
has to potential to effect the NAC network in a catastrophic manner.
I'd love any comments from anyone.
Legal comments should be solved by legal means.
1. Ask ARIN if their legal counsel would be willing to file a friend of
the court brief to help the judge understand that this
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:15:14AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce
non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their
choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier
[that the
Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
Isn't renumbering an obligation?
It depends on what day you talk to ARIN. Or perhaps it depends on what
most benefits ARIN when you talk to them, I'm not sure.
I had an allocation from ARIN that wasn't big enough to renumber into
(after telling them that I planned
I would have to say no.
However, we will typically send an email to the customer and their new
provider giving them 60 days to renumber their network. After that time it is
fair game to reallocate to another customer or blackhole or whatever. The new
provider will typically push the
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space
should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has
made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further
argued that the court could
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Andy Dills wrote:
Actually, I don't think that's the case. ARIN still owns the numbers, NAC
is just leasing them. Therefore, ARINs rules supercede anything
contractual between NAC and the customer.
I may be missing the point here, but the address space in question is
Since this customer has it's own space now, and as long as it is as large
as the NAC space, they can do a simple 1-to-1 NAT at the border. This
should minimise the hardship to them drastically.
K
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Jess Kitchen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Andy Dills wrote:
Actually, I
Title: RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Hello Alex,
In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether
or not IP space should be portable, when an industry-
supported organization (ARIN) has made policy that the
space is in fact not portable. It can be further
Title: RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
Sorry about the html.
^%$%*.!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Ranch
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:12 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Can
On Jun 23, 2004, at 1:11 PM, Chris Ranch wrote:
A court will likely decide this based upon the terms of
your contract and what the court thinks is fair. They will
likely give very little consideration to common practice or
ARIN's rules.
That's the crux of the biscuit. Your case depends on
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Chris Ranch wrote:
That's the crux of the biscuit. Your case depends on whether you
provided for this in your contract with the customer. If its missing,
you have a big challenge on your hands. No RFC or ARIN policy is a
binding legal document. If its there, your
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Krzysztof Adamski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this customer has it's own space now, and as long as it is as large
as the NAC space, they can do a simple 1-to-1 NAT at the border. This
should minimise the hardship to them drastically.
er, right. as
RW Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
RW From: Richard Welty
RW i had a customer once who had, for no reason they could
RW ever clearly explain, arbitrarily used ericson's IP space for
RW their own internal network.
Only one customer? There are a couple consulting firms in
particular
On Jun 23, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
RW Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
RW From: Richard Welty
RW i had a customer once who had, for no reason they could
RW ever clearly explain, arbitrarily used ericson's IP space for
RW their own internal network.
Only one customer?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:06:54 + (GMT) Edward B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
RW From: Richard Welty
RW i had a customer once who had, for no reason they could
RW ever clearly explain, arbitrarily used ericson's IP space for
RW their own
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or
not IP space
should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has
made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further
argued that the
Let me try to give you a hypothetical to show you why ARIN is
irrelevent.
Suppose I am a member of the Longshoreman's assocation and you have a
contract to buy shrimp for $8/pound provided you only resell it to
members
of the LA. You then enter into a contract with me to sell me shrimp
for
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:36:56 -0700 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, if what you say were true, all an ISP would have to do in
order to sell their IP space is to create a contract stating that they
are doing so.
Exactly. If they did that, a court would likely
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
Contracts are rarely as binding as people think they are. Of course, I'm
no lawyer, I just hate paying them.
Let me try to give you a hypothetical to show you why ARIN is irrelevent.
Suppose I am a member of the Longshoreman's assocation
David Schwartz wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
[snip]
For instance, if what you say were true, all an ISP would have to do in
order to sell their IP space is to create a contract stating that they
are doing so.
Exactly. If they did that, a court would likely enjoin them
If you ran a museum, and you contracted for the use and display of an
artifact, and then somehow entered into a contract to sell somebody else
that artifact (even though you had no property rights), the original
contract supercedes the second contract. Additionally, because there is no
Is this analogy really accurate? In your analogy, the person who
initially purchases the shrimp actually *owns* the shrimp at that point.
With IP address space, the ISP does not own the space that it allocates.
It's really just sub-letting the space already allocated to it.
Doesn't
does your contract with your customers state that the space
is non-portable, that they can't take it with them and that
they WILL have to renumber ?? If so then they are asking
the court to change the contract you and they entered, which
i doubt would happen.
the legal risk here is if the court
Not directed at anyone specifically, but has anyone noticed that on
these lists, people tend to focus on whether or not people's analogies
are correct, rather than trying to answer the original question?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:57:25 -0700, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you
| Why? Nobody cares who owns the IPs, just whether or not the ISP allows
| the customer to continue using them, which the ISP certainly has the
| ability to do.
Not necessarily. Use of the IPs is effectively licensed to the ISP by
the RIR, and sublicensed by the ISP to the user. If either
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination. Were I
the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned telephone number
portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain what additional work
had to be done to the POTS network to implement
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
If you ran a museum, and you contracted for the use and display of an
artifact, and then somehow entered into a contract to sell somebody else
that artifact (even though you had no property rights), the original
contract supercedes the second
Not directed at anyone specifically, but has anyone noticed that on
these lists, people tend to focus on whether or not people's analogies
are correct, rather than trying to answer the original question?
So long as you continue to focus on the analogy as it relates to the
original
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:00:15 -0700 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? Nobody cares who owns the IPs, just whether or not the ISP allows the
customer to continue using them, which the ISP certainly has the ability to
do.
although the IP address block becomes damaged goods, as
additionally, how is the ISP to account to ARIN for this block should
they go back for more space?
They show ARIN a copy of the TRO. Really.
there is a widely accepted understanding of how this is all supposed
to work, and if the ex-NAC customer succeeds in gaining this TRO,
and
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:25:45 -0700 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason I'm pointing out which strategies are unlikely to work is not
because I hope they won't work but because I want him to make sure to
emphasize the strongest possible arguments. IMO, these are:
you omit
a TRO against nacs.net has no effect on the behavior of providers
such as verio who won't honor the advertisement of the subnet
in BGP. the customer would have to, one-by-one i think, go after
everybody with the relatively common policy of ignoring such
advertisements (isn't sprint one of
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:40:06 -0700 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a TRO against nacs.net has no effect on the behavior of providers
such as verio who won't honor the advertisement of the subnet
in BGP. the customer would have to, one-by-one i think, go after
everybody with the
It's worth pointing out, however, that if case 2 applies and case 1
doesn't, then the ISP will still be providing a level of actual packet
carrying service to the customer.
bt. if the ISPs have sensible policy implementations at the border,
nobody will be be providing free
Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce
non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their
choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier
[that the space is assigned to]?
According to ARIN regulations, the space
In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space
should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has
made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further
argued that the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively
59 matches
Mail list logo
