- Test - lists.nanog.org

Conference - Preventing the Internet Meltdown
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

http://www.pfir.org/meltdown -Hank

3 2

RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
by Michel Py 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

> william(at)elan.net > I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653), Good catch William!

2 1

RE: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
by Hannigan, Martin 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new provider. I'd say it would be a violation of the agreement, but I'm not a lawyer. Just a thought. -M -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan(a)verisign.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Brad Passwaters > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:02 PM > To: Matthew Crocker > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court > says yes!) > > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:45:40 -0400, Matthew Crocker > <matthew(a)crocker.com> wrote: > > > > The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, > did anyone > > actually think they would have a clue? > > > > Here is the solution: > > Perhaps before proposing a solution we should make sure that > all the facts > are in evidence. I might suggest since at least some of the > legal documents > are available to you at the url below you take time to read them. > > http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ > > Its not clear at all that what the courts are proposing is > that the customer be > allowed to keep the addresses forever, just that they have > adequate time > for an orderly move. Its also not clear that NAC won't > receive comensatation > for use of their resources. I think those people who have > done service provider > moves realize that without the help of their old service provider > their life could > well be hellish. If the requirements for the lack of IP > portability are indeed > purely technical and not some effort to hold onto customers > then service > providers have a duty to make almost any reasonable effort to > make the > transition as painless as possible > > -- > > Brad Passwaters > ------------------------------------------ > brad.passwaters(a)gmail.com >

8 8

Re: Can a customer take their IPs with them? (Court says yes!)
by Paul Robinson 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

In an attempt to add a little more light than heat to this issue, let me add my .02 Euros. I am not a lawyer although I've had to defend myself in court a few times, so I do know a few things. This is a temporary restraining order. These are commonly issued "ex parte" meaning at the request of one of the parties and may even be done where the other party did not even show up or was given notice. The purpose is to "preserve the status quo." The court apparently - from the description of the TRO - issued it verbatim as the plaintiff filed it. I doubt the court even knew what half the terms on the order meant. I had trouble and I'm somewhat familiar with Internet networking. In the case at hand, it may be that the contract with the provider could in theory have allowed immediate repossession of the IP address space which was loaned to them in the event they changed providers. In which case, if the company that has the particular IP space, allowing them to have their address range "snatched away" from them immediately would constitute irreparable harm, since it can take up to a week for an address change to propagate throughout the Internet. A Temporary Restraining Order is intended to keep things as they are at the time it was issued, until such time as a court has the opportunity to hear evidence and to make a decision. Generally they are issued subject to the following conclusions: 1. The party asking for the order (the plaintiff, here) is quite likely to suffer irreparable harm if the relief requested by the order is not granted. 2. The party to whom the order is issued against (the defendant, here) either will not suffer harm as a result of the order or the amount of harm is minor or substantially less than that which would occur to the other party if the order isn't granted.. There are additional conditions involved, but these are the two most important. Here, allowing the customer to keep the number on a temporary basis while the court decides the issue does not necessarily harm the defending ISP and failing to do so would probably be devastating to the customer. Now, to the extent the customer has other options (such as using the number block which they have been assigned directly) will provide the court with a reasonable solution as to why the TRO should be dissolved after the customer has some reasonable time to correct the problem, e.g. to renumber their systems and advertise the new routes to the various routers and DNS systems might require, say 7-10 days. Also, if the contract between the company and the ISP provides them sufficient protection to allow them the time necessary to renumber and reroute then the need for the TRO becomes moot. However, if the contract was silent on this point or explicitly allowed immediate repossession then the TRO may have been a valid issue in order to preserve the status quo for the time being until the issue can be sorted out. This is the basic reason such decisions are issued, so that things can remain as they are until the court can figure out who is entitled to relief. It does not necessarily mean the customer will win or even has a valid cause of action, it just simply means that it is less catastrophic to the ISP to require they not "yank" the IP addresses from the customer than it would be to allow them to do so, pending the outcome of the actual trial on the merits of the issues involved. Please excuse me if this is obvious, but I thought it might help. -- Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..." "...And continue!" "If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us." -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/P d-(-)>-- s+:+++ a+ C++ UL--->$ P+ L+>$ !E W++>$ N++ !o !K-- w+>--$ O->- !M-- !V- PS+++>$ PE !Y !PGP t> !5 !X !R tv+ b++++(++++)>++++ DI() D++>++ G> e> h+(+)>$ r> y+**(+) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

1 0

RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Bravo. - ferg -- "Ray Plzak" <plzak(a)arin.net> 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 understand more accurately the legal and policy issues involved. Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

BTW, in which state did this occur? Any additional pointers? Thanks, - ferg -- Alex Rubenstein <alex(a)nac.net> 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. [...] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

7 8

Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
by Johnny Eriksson 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg(a)netzero.net> wrote: > Regardless, this is not a telephony issue ("Can I take my cell > number with me?"), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose > these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing > table efficiency. No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone moving to a new apartment in a different part of town, and asking the court to force the owner of the old house to reassign the old street address to him. --Johnny

5 5

Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
by Alex Rubenstein 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

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 where the customer has canceled his service with us in writing. > If there's a contract dispute, it actually makes a lot of sense to > issue the order you quoted. There's no harm to you (or the Internet > as a whole) because the customer just appears to be another > multi-homed customer of yours, provided that the prefix that is > involved reaches a certain size. OTOH, if you were allowed to > reassign the IP address space while the dispute is being resolved, > this could severely harm the customer's business. > > Of course, this setup can be just temporary. If you are ordered to > permanently give up that particular prefix, then you'll have reason to > complain. I can't address all of the points you raise, but I can say the following: a) NAC did not terminate the customers service in any respect. The customer chose, on his own, to terminate their service with us. This fact is undisputed. Also, NAC was willing to continue the customers service (we were not forcing them out the door). b) In regards to your passage, "because the customer just appears to be another multi-homed customer of yours", this is a key point. The customer *WILL NOT* be a customer of NAC any longer once they physically leave. The key point here is that the customer has gotten a TRO, which allows them to take the IP address space that is allocated to NAC with them, and NOT HAVE ANY SERVICE FROM NAC. NAC WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE NETWORKS THAT THEY ARE MULTIHOMED TO. 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 cable modem users, or dialup users, or webhosting customers, the right to ask to take their /32 with them? Regards,

8 8

RE: Can a customer take IP's with them?
by Michel Py 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

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 renumbering an entire /17 because an ex-customer > is too lazy to renumber a /24.[*] If NAC's ex-customer > thinks renumbering a /24 is excessive, what about > something two orders of magnitude larger? Indeed, but that's not the worst part. Should this happen, it would mean that the ex-customer just got PI space for free. Then the floodgates would open and a bunch of "why-not-me-too" would sue their ISPs to transform their PA block into a free PI block. Michel.

1 0

Re: BGP list of phishing sites?
by Paul Vixie 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

> meanwhile your sister has the hassle of getting southwest to send that > fax, or changing her travel plans. i'm sure glad you're not running my > isp. if i were running your isp, paying customers would get to choose.

1 0