FYI: from nanog list. If this comes true, we gonna have a big mess. It's worth reading.
F.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:24:27 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Alex Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> > Please read -- this is lengthy, and important to the industry as a > whole. We ask for, and solicit, comments, letters of support, etc., > for our position. We are looking for people to take a position on > this, and come forward, perhaps even to provide an affidavit or > certification. Something along the lines of a 'friend of the court' > brief, or even comments as to why we are wrong. > > Read on. > > There has been a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by state > court that customers may take non-portable IP space with them when > they leave their provider. Important to realize: THIS TEMPORARY > RESTRAINING ORDER HAS BEEN GRANTED, AND IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. THIS > IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS > HAPPENED. THERE IS AN ABILITY TO DISSOLVE IT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE > TRYING TO DO. > > This is a matter is of great importance to the entire Internet > community. This type of precedent is very dangerous. If this ruling > is upheld it has the potential to disrupt routing throughout the > Internet, and change practices of business for any Internet Service > Provider. > > In the TRO, the specific language that is enforced is as follows: > > "NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any > carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that > were utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the April > 2003 Agreement during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER > Addresses") and shall not interfere in any way with the use of the > Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, including, but not limited to: > > (i) by reassignment of IP address space to any customer; aggregation > and/or BGP announcement modifications, > > (ii) by directly or indirectly causing the occurrence of superseding > or conflicting BGP Global Routing Table entries; filters and/or > access lists, and/or > > (iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization or > access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, (c) provide > CUSTOMER with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) within seven (7) days > of CUSTOMER's written request for same to the email address/ticket > system ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), and (d) permit announcement of the Prior > CUSTOMER Addresses to any carrier, IP transit or IP peering network." > > > We believe this order to be in direct violation of ARIN policy and > the standard contract that is signed by every entity that is given an > allocation of IP space. The ARIN contract strictly states that the > IP space is NOT property of the ISP and can not be sold or > transferred. The IP blocks in question in this case are very clearly > defined as non-portable space by ARIN. > > Section 9 of ARIN's standard Service Agreement clearly states: > > "9. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the > numbering resources are not property (real, personal or intellectual) > and that Applicant shall not acquire any property rights in or to any > numbering resources by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise. > Applicant further agrees that it will not attempt, directly or > indirectly, to obtain or assert any trademark, service mark, > copyright or any other form of property rights in any numbering > resources in the United States or any other country." > > [Full ARIN agreement http://www.arin.net/library/agreements/rsa.pdf] > > Further, it is important to realize that this CUSTOMER has already > gotten allocations from ARIN over 15 months ago, and has chosen not > to renumber out of NAC IP space. They have asserted that ARIN did not > supply them with IP space fast enough to allow them to renumber. > Since they have gotten allocations from ARIN, we are confident they > have signed ARIN's RSA as well, and are aware of the above point (9). > > > If this ruling stands and a new precedent is set, any customer of any > carrier would be allowed to take their IP space with them when they > leave just because it is not convenient for them to renumber. That > could be a single static IP address for a dial-up customer or many > thousands of addresses for a web hosting company. This could mean > that if you want to revoke the address space of a spammer customer, > that the court could allow the customer to simply take the space with > them and deny you as the carrier (and ARIN) their rights to control > the space as you (and ARIN) see fit. > > REMEMBER, THE INTERNET USED TO BE BASED UPON PORTABLE IP SPACE, AND > IS NO LONGER FOR SEVERAL TECHNICAL REASONS. > > It is important to understand that this is not a situation where a > customer is being forced to leave on short notice. NAC has not > revoked the IP space of the customer. This is a situation where a > customer is exercising their option not to renew their services and > is leaving voluntarily. In addition the customer in question was > granted their own IP space OVER A YEAR AGO and simply chose not to > renumber their entire network. The key issue is that they want to > take the space with them AFTER they leave NAC and are NO LONGER A > CUSTOMER. > > Why this TRO is bad for the Internet: > > 1. It undermines ARIN's entire contract and authority to assign IP > space. > > 2. It means that once IP addresses have been assigned / SWIP'ed to a > Customer that the Customer may now have the right to continued use of > those addresses even if the customer leaves the service of the > Provider. In other words the right of the Provider to maintain > control and use of the address space assigned to his network, is to > now be subject to the Customer going to a State Court and getting an > Order to take such space with them. Instead of the Addresses being > allocated by delegated authority of the Department of Commerce and > ARIN they become useable by anyone who convinces a Judge that they > have a need for the addresses. > > It appears the Customer can keep the addresses for as long as it > pleases the State Court and as long as the Customer can judicially > hijack the space. > > The tragic part of this is that the Court which issues the Order does > not even have to hear expert testimony. So the Court can issue such > Order without fully understanding the Internet Technology that is > affected or the havoc it could cause in National and International > Communications. > > 3. Significant potential for routing havoc as pieces of non-portable > blocks of space are no longer controlled by the entity that has the > assignment from ARIN, but by the end user customer for as long as > that customer wants to use them. If the customer was causing a > routing problem by improper routing confirmation the carrier would > lose their authority to revoke or limit the use of the IP space to > protect the stability of the carrier's network. In other words, > court-compelled LOAs are a 'bad thing.' > > 4. Because the IP space is still assigned to the carrier, the carrier > would potentially be responsible to continue to respond to all SPAM > and hacking complaints, DMCA violations, and all other forms of > abuse. All of this abuse responsibility and liability would continue > with no recourse to revoke or limit IP space of that customer and no > ability to receive financial compensation for that task. This is not > a theoretical problem, in the case of this customer we have received > numerous abuse complaints throughout their history as a customer. > While they have generally resolved these issues, it still is a real > cost for us to handle. This is something that has the potential to > create a massive burden for the carrier. > > 5. It would fundamentally change the long standing policy that the > carrier that has the IP space assigned to them has the right to > assign and revoke the IP space as it sees fit, and that the customer > has no rights to the IP space other then the rights that the carrier > gives them (through a delegation from ARIN). > > 6. If the customer is being DDOSed, or attacked (perhaps they may > even instigate it purposely), and then stops announcing the more > specific routes, the attack when then flow to us, the innocent > bystander. Essentially, the customer could cause a DDOS for which I > will then be billed for. This type of thing has been known to happen > in the past (but not with this CUSTOMER). > > As you can see, this TRO has widespread effects, and is something > that everyone in the industry could be affected by. If this precedent > is set, you will soon have everyone acting as if IP's are property, > and something that they are entitled to. I ask for input from > everyone in the community on this. We don't think we're crazy, but > want to make sure.
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
