Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million by Milton Mueller on Wed 23 Mar 2011 10:30 PM EDT | Permanent Link | ShareThis Wake up call for our friends in the Regional Internet Registries. Nortel, the Canadian telecommunications equipment manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009, has succeeded in making its legacy IPv4 address block an asset that can be sold to generate money for its creditors. The March 23 edition of the Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Report has reported that Nortel's block of 666,624 IPv4's was sold for $7.5 million - a price of $11.25 per IP address. The buyer of the addresses was Microsoft. More information is in its filing in a Delware bankruptcy court. Now the interesting question becomes, does the price of IPv4s go up or down from here? As the realities of dual stack sink in, I'm betting...up.
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a /13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22. On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html
Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
by Milton Mueller on Wed 23 Mar 2011 10:30 PM EDT | Permanent Link | ShareThis
Wake up call for our friends in the Regional Internet Registries. Nortel, the Canadian telecommunications equipment manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009, has succeeded in making its legacy IPv4 address block an asset that can be sold to generate money for its creditors. The March 23 edition of the Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Report has reported that Nortel's block of 666,624 IPv4's was sold for $7.5 million - a price of $11.25 per IP address. The buyer of the addresses was Microsoft. More information is in its filing in a Delware bankruptcy court. Now the interesting question becomes, does the price of IPv4s go up or down from here? As the realities of dual stack sink in, I'm betting...up.
On Mar 24, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 09:10 -0400, Jay Nakamura wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a /13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
Yeah, I was trying to work that out -- well done for persevering. :)
Sounds like the pieces of their /8 that weren't in use or something like that. Owen
Jay Nakamura <zeusdadog@gmail.com> wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a /13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of miscellaneous blocks that Nortel acquired over the years, presumable via corporate M&A. However there isn't (as far as I can see) a list of the actual blocks. See docket 5143 at http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx
Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ South-east Iceland: Cyclonic 4 or 5, increasing 5 to 7 for a time in north. Moderate or rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good.
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefiting service providers much more. On 03/24/2011 09:27 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamura<zeusdadog@gmail.com> wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a /13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22. From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of miscellaneous blocks that Nortel acquired over the years, presumable via corporate M&A. However there isn't (as far as I can see) a list of the actual blocks. See docket 5143 at http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx
Tony.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Bret Clark <bclark@spectraaccess.com> wrote:
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefiting service providers much more.
Microsoft runs Hotmail. Office Live and a bunch of other services you might have heard of. And if every common or garden snowshoer can get a /15, why can't a legitimate corporation get some for itself? :) -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
In a message written on Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:32:21AM -0400, Bret Clark wrote:
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefiting service providers much more.
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay $7.5 million for something they can, at least for the moment, get for free. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another question will be: how is Arin going to handle it? Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert to the Arin pool. I understand that these were legacy addresses but....... Aaron Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless -----Original message----- From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 14:08:21 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million In a message written on Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:32:21AM -0400, Bret Clark wrote:
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefiting service providers much more.
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay $7.5 million for something they can, at least for the moment, get for free. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:27:58 CDT, Aaron Wendel said:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another
question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert to the Arin pool. I understand that these were legacy addresses but.......
The *important* question is - do they *remain* legacy addresses under the legacy address rules after the Microsoft acquisition, and thus re-sellable at a later date? If so, we may have seen the first case of IP address speculation, and the start of the bubble. I don't want to see how this bubble bursts..
Sent from my iPad On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:27:58 CDT, Aaron Wendel said:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another
question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert to the Arin pool. I understand that these were legacy addresses but.......
The *important* question is - do they *remain* legacy addresses under the legacy address rules after the Microsoft acquisition, and thus re-sellable at a later date? If so, we may have seen the first case of IP address speculation, and the start of the bubble. I don't want to see how this bubble bursts..
In order for the transfer to be recognized by ARIN, they would not be able to remain legacy addresses. However, nothing in ARIN policy precludes resale of transferred addresses at a later date. What it does preclude, however, is acquiring the addresses without justified need. Owen
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:27 58AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert to the Arin pool. I understand that these were legacy addresses but.......
I wonder if the bankruptcy court agrees with that. Does it have the power to order ARIN to accept this? "Send lawyers, guns, and money"... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:27 58AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert to the Arin pool. I understand that these were legacy addresses but.......
I wonder if the bankruptcy court agrees with that. Does it have the power to order ARIN to accept this? "Send lawyers, guns, and money"...
Good question. Isn't ARIN a US corporation? <lynx> Yep; incorporated in Virginia. At the very least, it might be ... interesting for a Canadian court to try to enforce an order on a US corporation with no Canadian presence. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:27 58AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert to the Arin pool. I understand that these were legacy addresses but.......
I wonder if the bankruptcy court agrees with that. Does it have the power to order ARIN to accept this? "Send lawyers, guns, and money"...
Disregard previous; I see the bankruptcy is in the Delaware courts. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
Actually ARIN rules don't say anything about bankruptcy. However, in the event that the organization ceases to exist and there is no successor organization taking over the network infrastructure under an 8.2 transfer, yes, the resources would revert to ARIN. The only other (legitimate) possibility is a section 8.3 transfer (which would require approval by ARIN also). In both an 8.2 and an 8.3 transfer, the recipient organization has to show justified need. The collection of blocks in question does not sound like it would be permitted under 8.3, so, perhaps Micr0$0ft is also acquiring part of Nortel's operations that are using those addresses as well. Owen Sent from my iPad On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:27 AM, "Aaron Wendel"<aaron@wholesaleinternet.net> wrote:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert to the Arin pool. I understand that these were legacy addresses but.......
Aaron
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message----- From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 14:08:21 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
In a message written on Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:32:21AM -0400, Bret Clark wrote:
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefitingservice providers much more.
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay $7.5 million for something they can, at least for the moment, get for free.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
* Leo Bicknell
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay $7.5 million for something they can, at least for the moment, get for free.
A very interesting question indeed! However, they can only get them for free from ARIN if they can document an immediate demand. Perhaps they don't have an immediate demand, and are simply stockpiling addresses for later use post ARIN depletion? Or perhaps they hope to make a profit then by selling them to someone else. Either way, it sure seems they're speculating that the market price of an IPv4 address is going to rise to more than US$11.25. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
Just wondering if Microsoft has to justify the address space once they change ownerships with Arin ? -----Original Message----- From: Tore Anderson [mailto:tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:40 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million * Leo Bicknell
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay $7.5 million for something they can, at least for the moment, get for free.
A very interesting question indeed! However, they can only get them for free from ARIN if they can document an immediate demand. Perhaps they don't have an immediate demand, and are simply stockpiling addresses for later use post ARIN depletion? Or perhaps they hope to make a profit then by selling them to someone else. Either way, it sure seems they're speculating that the market price of an IPv4 address is going to rise to more than US$11.25. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
On Mar 24, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
They can only get them for free from ARIN if they can document an immediate demand. Perhaps they don't have an immediate demand…
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical resource from use. -Bill
* Bill Woodcock
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a transfer, is needs-based.
I've understood that this claim is undisputed *only* for address space that is covered by the ARIN LRSA or any other normal RIR agreement. (I have no idea if that is the case for this particular address space or not.) -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
* Bill Woodcock
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a transfer, is needs-based.
I've understood that this claim is undisputed *only* for address space that is covered by the ARIN LRSA or any other normal RIR agreement. (I have no idea if that is the case for this particular address space or not.)
Tore, Legacy address transferability has been disputed before. Kremen v. ARIN. Kremen lost. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Legacy address transferability has been disputed before. Kremen v. ARIN. Kremen lost.
Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on anything related to address policy: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/01/kremen_loses_ch_1.htm Regards, -drc
Agreed, Look at: http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20N... Even assuming Kremen was decided as ARIN says; United States District Courts can and do disagree. On Mar 24, 2011, at 2:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on anything related to address policy:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu> wrote:
http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20N... Even assuming Kremen was decided as ARIN says; United States District Courts can and do disagree.
Hi Ernie, The case you refer to was a dispute about a trademark which the a particular domain name infringed. The court's theory was that the property right in the trademark (well documented in law) covered the domain name too (fresh precedent). So while a court could disagree about IP addresses, it's not really accurate to say that one has. As you acknowledge in your paper, no such extension of existing intellectual property law has been proposed to cover any particular formulation of integers, including IP addresses. At least within the US, article I section 8 clause 8 would seem to preclude the courts from recognizing intellectual property outside the rationally extensible bounds of what the congress has defined. So it's not really clear under what theory of property law a court would choose to compel ARIN to transfer a legacy registration while retaining legacy status. Indeed, you point out that in a similar situation - telephone numbers - the courts have steadfastly refused to recognize a property interest. Finally, in the case you refer to, the result was a change in party in an explicit signed contract. No such document has been executed between ARIN and the legacy registrants or between those registrants and ARIN's predecessors. The absence of any such legal instrument sets a high bar indeed for anyone attempting to compel ARIN to change a registration outside the course of ARIN's normal policy-defined process. It can't even be tortious interference as the parties knew or should have known ARIN's stance before they began talking. Now, if congress tomorrow passes a bill that says IP addresses are a new form of intellectual property then they're property henceforward and the legal regime underpinning ARIN falls apart. But that hasn't happened yet. It hasn't even been proposed. On a technical note, your URLs will work more reliably if you don't put spaces in the file names. Although Google Gmail is probably the party at fault, your URL got translated to "+"'s instead of spaces. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Alright, how about this - let's wait and see what the bankruptcy judge says. Which firm do you practice for? On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu> wrote:
http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20N... Even assuming Kremen was decided as ARIN says; United States District Courts can and do disagree.
Hi Ernie,
The case you refer to was a dispute about a trademark which the a particular domain name infringed. The court's theory was that the property right in the trademark (well documented in law) covered the domain name too (fresh precedent). So while a court could disagree about IP addresses, it's not really accurate to say that one has.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu> wrote:
Alright, how about this - let's wait and see what the bankruptcy judge says.
With bated breath. -Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
The judge definitely ruled that the transfer had to be done in a manner that complied with ARIN policy and made it clear that the recipient was, indeed, required to sign the RSA. So, yes, Kremen also lost on the address policy basis, which I believe may have been an additional ruling subsequent to what is covered at the cited URL. Owen Sent from my iPad On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:24 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Legacy address transferability has been disputed before. Kremen v. ARIN. Kremen lost.
Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on anything related to address policy:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/01/kremen_loses_ch_1.htm
Regards, -drc
Owen, I (and I presume Eric Goldman, author of the post I referenced) was looking at Judge James Ware's actual ruling (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:200...). I don't see anything in there discussing that 'the transfer had to be done in a manner that complied with ARIN policy' or Kremen was 'required to sign the RSA'. It isn't a very long document (and surprisingly easy to read for a court judgement). Not being a lawyer, I can't be certain, but all I see is "time-barred" and "statute of limitations". The only thing relevant I can see in subsequent filings is that Kremen and ARIN came to a settlement in which ARIN didn't have to do anything and Kremen wouldn't pursue the matter. Can you point to where the Judge said anything (much less definitively) about complying with ARIN policy, signing an RSA, etc.? Regards, -drc On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The judge definitely ruled that the transfer had to be done in a manner that complied with ARIN policy and made it clear that the recipient was, indeed, required to sign the RSA.
So, yes, Kremen also lost on the address policy basis, which I believe may have been an additional ruling subsequent to what is covered at the cited URL.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:24 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Legacy address transferability has been disputed before. Kremen v. ARIN. Kremen lost.
Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on anything related to address policy:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/01/kremen_loses_ch_1.htm
Regards, -drc
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical resource from use.
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical resource from use.
Thank you Randy. Give Canute a community-developed set of marching orders, and make the ocean a little more pliable and you might have something there. As usual, I will simply point out to folks that ARIN will indeed administer the policy as adopted, and will explain it as necessary in various courtrooms. I ask that the community spend its time thinking about what policies are indeed desirable, and make sure those are reflected in the adopted policies. That's the first priority in making sure that we're doing the right thing and our efforts are productive and useful to the community. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical resource from use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute Thank you Randy. Give Canute a community-developed set of marching orders, and make the ocean a little more pliable and you might have something there.
at some point, the arin policy wonk weenies will face reality. or not. it really makes little difference. i don't particularly like the reality either, but i find it easier and more productive to align my actions and how i spend my time. not a lot of high paying jobs pushing water uphill. randy
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical resource from use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute Thank you Randy. Give Canute a community-developed set of marching orders, and make the ocean a little more pliable and you might have something there.
at some point, the arin policy wonk weenies will face reality. or not. it really makes little difference.
i don't particularly like the reality either, but i find it easier and more productive to align my actions and how i spend my time. not a lot of high paying jobs pushing water uphill.
randy
At some point we will see which reality actually pans out. Both the perspective of we "ARIN Policy wonk weenies" as Randy so kindly calls us, and, Randy's perspective are speculations about future events. I think both are probably equally based in reality based on different sets of experiences. Since my reality has the potential to preserve many good aspects of the internet, I hope it turns out that Randy is the one who is wrong. Owen
On Mar 25, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical resource from use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute Thank you Randy. Give Canute a community-developed set of marching orders, and make the ocean a little more pliable and you might have something there.
at some point, the arin policy wonk weenies will face reality. or not. it really makes little difference.
i don't particularly like the reality either, but i find it easier and more productive to align my actions and how i spend my time. not a lot of high paying jobs pushing water uphill.
randy
At some point we will see which reality actually pans out. Both the perspective of we "ARIN Policy wonk weenies" as Randy so kindly calls us, and, Randy's perspective are speculations about future events. I think both are probably equally based in reality based on different sets of experiences.
Since my reality has the potential to preserve many good aspects of the internet, I hope it turns out that Randy is the one who is wrong.
Owen
Or possibly, if we can not sort this on our own and set a good precedent (for ARIN and the other registries as well) that we can sort this out ourselves in a way that is agreeable and beneficial to all stakeholders - we will just be adding another piece of lumber onto the ready-to-light bonfire that government needs to step in somehow? - Mike
John, On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:42 AM, John Curran wrote:
As usual, I will simply point out to folks that ARIN will indeed administer the policy as adopted, and will explain it as necessary in various courtrooms.
Oddly, when I said something similar a few years back, I was accused of attempting to 'destroy the Internet' by an ARIN board member. Out of curiosity, which policy declares 'legacy' space under ARIN administration, when was it adopted, and by whom? Regards, -drc
At 15:40 24/03/2011 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
Either way, it sure seems they're speculating that the market price of an IPv4 address is going to rise to more than US$11.25.
Anything that has ceased to be produced and has demand will go up in value. Just rename IPv4 as Pontiac GTO. -Hank
Sent from my iPad On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
* Leo Bicknell
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay $7.5 million for something they can, at least for the moment, get for free.
A very interesting question indeed!
However, they can only get them for free from ARIN if they can document an immediate demand. Perhaps they don't have an immediate demand, and are simply stockpiling addresses for later use post ARIN depletion? Or perhaps they hope to make a profit then by selling them to someone else.
Either way, it sure seems they're speculating that the market price of an IPv4 address is going to rise to more than US$11.25.
-- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
If they are stockpiling and can't justify need, they are doing so outside of ARIN policy and I will be surprised if that doesn't get challenged by ARIN. Owen
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 01:27:29PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamura <zeusdadog@gmail.com> wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a /13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of miscellaneous blocks that Nortel acquired over the years, presumable via corporate M&A. However there isn't (as far as I can see) a list of the actual blocks. See docket 5143 at http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx
Exhibit B expressly indicates they were listed but filed under seal; interesting to request that. Previous documents indicate they used a third party to shop things around, who got a $200k retainer and is getting paid 5% of the sale. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
On 03/24/2011 10:06 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 01:27:29PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamura<zeusdadog@gmail.com> wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a /13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22. From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of miscellaneous blocks that Nortel acquired over the years, presumable via corporate M&A. However there isn't (as far as I can see) a list of the actual blocks. See docket 5143 at http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx
Exhibit B expressly indicates they were listed but filed under seal; interesting to request that. Previous documents indicate they used a third party to shop things around, who got a $200k retainer and is getting paid 5% of the sale.
Docket #4435, Exhibit B has more information on the IP address broker, Addrex, Inc., of Reston, Va. Here's the president and related companies -- http://www.linkedin.com/pub/charles-m-lee/22/414/a94 http://www.denuo.com http://www.addrex.net http://www.depository.net
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:10:14 -0400, Larry Blunk <ljb@merit.edu> wrote:
On 03/24/2011 10:06 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 01:27:29PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamura<zeusdadog@gmail.com> wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a /13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22. From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of miscellaneous blocks that Nortel acquired over the years, presumable via corporate M&A. However there isn't (as far as I can see) a list of the actual blocks. See docket 5143 at http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx
Exhibit B expressly indicates they were listed but filed under seal; interesting to request that. Previous documents indicate they used a third party to shop things around, who got a $200k retainer and is getting paid 5% of the sale.
Docket #4435, Exhibit B has more information on the IP address broker, Addrex, Inc., of Reston, Va. Here's the president and related companies --
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/charles-m-lee/22/414/a94 http://www.denuo.com http://www.addrex.net http://www.depository.net
I actually dug back through the thread to find this e-mail. I particularly find the last link of interest. Aaron
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:07 PM, <aaron@wholesaleinternet.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:10:14 -0400, Larry Blunk <ljb@merit.edu> wrote:
On 03/24/2011 10:06 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
Exhibit B expressly indicates they were listed but filed under seal; interesting to request that. Previous documents indicate they used a third party to shop things around, who got a $200k retainer and is getting paid 5% of the sale.
Docket #4435, Exhibit B has more information on the IP address broker, Addrex, Inc., of Reston, Va. Here's the president and related companies --
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/charles-m-lee/22/414/a94 http://www.denuo.com http://www.addrex.net http://www.depository.net
I actually dug back through the thread to find this e-mail. I particularly find the last link of interest.
So -that's- why Peter Thimmesch was privately contacting ARIN PPML posters last month. I wondered what the guy hoped to gain; he was trying to establish legitimacy for depository.net in support of this sale. -Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html
Read the comment at the end (attached here for reference). /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ----
Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, Requests Approval of Sale of IPv4 address blocks by John Curran on Thu 24 Mar 2011 11:31 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Milton -
Did you have an opportunity to review the actual docket materials, or is your "coverage" based just on your review of the referenced article?
The parties have requested approval of a sale order from the Bankruptcy judge. There is a timeline for making filings and a hearing date. There is not an approved sale order at this time, contrary to your blog entry title.
ARIN has a responsibility to make clear the community-developed policies by which we maintain the ARIN Whois database, and any actual transfer of number resources in compliance with such policies will be reflected in the database.
FYI, /John
List, since there are IRR databases operated by non-RIRs, does one need to register a prefix in any RIR-DB at all, to see it reachable on the Internet? Have there been any presentations/research done on reachability of RIR-registered vs non-RIR-registered vs completely unregistered announcements? ( When I say RPKI below I mean the entire secure BGP routing infrastructure developments. ) I think it is pretty clear what the greatest motivation from RIRs on RPKI is: (Unregistered) legacy v4-space (ie, reaching a critical mass so that the network effect starts to apply positively for the reachability of non-RIR-registered space. John Currant has written on RPKI = certification of RIR-DB contents on this list before, but that could in all seriousness be equally accomplished simply by having a usable and trusted API-connection to query the DB itself. And that I think hardly anyone would oppose. (AFAIK ARIN has already deployed this by now; and as soon as their services has some sort of authentication (DNSSEC'ed DNS with SSL cert in it, for example? It's ~trivial to program a client for this!) a lot will have been accomplished already! What's different and unique with the RPKI effort is that it integrates this information directly into BGP itself, in an effort to claim control on what's being announced on the Internet. The former I welcome warmly, while the latter I think it remains to be seen how successful it will be. Regards, Martin On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html
Read the comment at the end (attached here for reference). /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
----
Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, Requests Approval of Sale of IPv4 address blocks by John Curran on Thu 24 Mar 2011 11:31 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Milton -
Did you have an opportunity to review the actual docket materials, or is your "coverage" based just on your review of the referenced article?
The parties have requested approval of a sale order from the Bankruptcy judge. There is a timeline for making filings and a hearing date. There is not an approved sale order at this time, contrary to your blog entry title.
ARIN has a responsibility to make clear the community-developed policies by which we maintain the ARIN Whois database, and any actual transfer of number resources in compliance with such policies will be reflected in the database.
FYI, /John
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Martin Millnert <millnert@gmail.com> wrote:
List,
since there are IRR databases operated by non-RIRs, does one need to register a prefix in any RIR-DB at all, to see it reachable on the Internet?
you successfully mixed up IRR and RIR in your post, care to untangle that and repost?
On 25/03/2011 09:54, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Martin Millnert<millnert@gmail.com> wrote:
List,
since there are IRR databases operated by non-RIRs, does one need to register a prefix in any RIR-DB at all, to see it reachable on the Internet?
you successfully mixed up IRR and RIR in your post, care to untangle that and repost?
Looks to me like his email was semantically sound. Remember, outside ARINinstan, irrdb functionality is usually implemented as an addon feature to the whois db. btw, the answer to his question is "no, but it's a good idea to do so". Nick
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 25/03/2011 09:54, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Martin Millnert<millnert@gmail.com> wrote:
List,
since there are IRR databases operated by non-RIRs, does one need to register a prefix in any RIR-DB at all, to see it reachable on the Internet?
you successfully mixed up IRR and RIR in your post, care to untangle that and repost?
Looks to me like his email was semantically sound. Remember, outside ARINinstan, irrdb functionality is usually implemented as an addon feature to the whois db.
ha! arinistan, funny!
btw, the answer to his question is "no, but it's a good idea to do so".
Nick
Hi, John. On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:35 AM, John Curran wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html
Read the comment at the end (attached here for reference).
Did you have an opportunity to review the actual docket materials, or is your "coverage" based just on your review of the referenced article?
The parties have requested approval of a sale order from the Bankruptcy judge. There is a timeline for making filings and a hearing date. There is not an approved sale order at this time, contrary to your blog entry title.
ARIN has a responsibility to make clear the community-developed policies by which we maintain the ARIN Whois database, and any actual transfer of number resources in compliance with such policies will be reflected in the database.
At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I see there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures my question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him: "1) a non-party to a bankruptcy proceeding can intervene in a purported asset sale during said proceeding if they have an interest (i.e property-type) in the asset. 2) ARIN's position is that there is no property interest in IP addresses (LRSA, RSA, etc)." I would add that ARIN, as a non-profit business league, has no statutory or regulatory authority in this matter. It's obvious that ARIN, as well as other whois database providers, should pay attention to the proceedings. But under what premise might ARIN act as a party to this lawsuit? Cheers, -Benson
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I see there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures my question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him:
Mr. Rubi is likely already aware from his legal studies that it is imprudent to argue cases in public in advance of filing. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Kind of off topic response so apologies, Perhaps ARINs counsel has counseled you against making statements - fair enough. My question doesn't go to any privileged information, just to general ARIN policy. I'll just say, for a community driven organization, it may seem odd to be silent in such important questions and take these decisions on your own. (I.e., decisions as to whether intervene in lawsuits, what policy arguments to make and how far to go before in said lawsuits). On a personal note, I'm just a law student and barely 28 y/o, but I'll say it again - I am astounded that people in all kinds of forums have derided me, chastised me and given me the silent treatment during this entire conversation. This was an academic question to me, but apparently lots of folks think it's life or death or semi-religious. I'll be quiet now. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:24 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I see there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures my question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him:
Mr. Rubi is likely already aware from his legal studies that it is imprudent to argue cases in public in advance of filing.
/John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
What is needed is for the networks in the transit-free club to decide they will not honor any "gray market" route advertisements resulting from extra-normal transfers of this nature, whether the announcement is from a peer or a customer. As we are all aware, no real dent was ever made in routing table growth except by Sprint deciding what it was willing to accept. The up-side to a huge, unchecked gray market benefits "bad guys," such as spammers, much more than it does ordinary operators and end-users, on this I think we can all agree. The recent thread on DFZ growth also demonstrates clearly that uncertainty as to whether or not such an unchecked gray market will be allowed to exist, or even thrive, is driving most of us to strike routers with 500k FIB from our list (many of us have been doing so for years.) This means that the uncertainty has already created cost for operators and thus end-users. The sooner the big players get together on this and decide not to allow such a gray market, the better off we will be. Since some of these big players have huge legacy address pools already, there is little disadvantage to those networks refusing to honor gray market announcements from their customers, and probably no disadvantage to accepting them from peers, as long as they are not the sole actor. I anxiously await an xtra-normal announcement forbidding extra-normal routes. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:24 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I see there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures my question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him: Mr. Rubi is likely already aware from his legal studies that it is imprudent to argue cases in public in advance of filing. /John
So I wonder.... rhetorically speaking.. what happens when a bankruptcy court accidentally sells something that doesn't actually exist, something that is 'fictional', or dead... like an appliance warranty without the appliance, or something that consisted of third parties voluntarily doing something for the original holder, without any promise to continue.... under mistaken belief the third parties had guaranteed something that could be assigned to a successor? Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee. E.g. Suppose I gave my neighbors a 100% discount on widgets for their use, just because they were neighbors, it was the community thing to do or something (legacy IP addresses with no agreement, no fees, contracts, etc). One of them declared bankruptcy, came to the court, and listed as one of their assets "100% widget discounts", and went to sell it to some major retailer, who wants to get a massive number of widgets to resell for profit (my name not mentioned, just as ARIN's name not mentioned)... is there really anything the buyer actually obtains? I mean, it sounds like someone threw 7.5 million into a furnace, unless they are going specified transfer.... Perhaps they come to ARIN eventually, but ARIN should enforce their policies. Meaning if MS has an RSA in force, all their resources should be compliant with ARIN policies, and all transfer policies should be followed with regards to justified need. I have little doubt that MS will properly construct/justify the need if they are obtaining resources. It's probably an easier/cheaper task for them to justify legitimately under RIR policies than trying to find some method of fighting with the community and risking an outcome that could be unfavorable and sully their own reputation in ways that might be hard to predict. Who knows, they have plenty of resources already and might plan a renumber and return; I would not assume the worst.... -- -JH
On 3/24/2011 7:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
Note that community participants can do this with or without ARIN having updated some entries in a database. Would de-peer with Microsoft (or turn down a transit contract from them) just because they wanted to announce some Nortel address space? Would ARIN really erase the Nortel entry and move these addresses to the free pool if Microsoft doesn't play along with one of the transfer policies? Would you announce addresses someone had just obtained from ARIN that were already being announced by Microsoft? Matthew Kaufman
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
On 3/24/2011 7:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
Would de-peer with Microsoft (or turn down a transit contract from them) just because they wanted to announce some Nortel address space?
Microsoft would likely be able to find someone who would not turn them down for transit.
Would ARIN really erase the Nortel entry and move these addresses to the free pool if Microsoft doesn't play along with one of the transfer policies?
Unknown. I would expect ARIN to erase entries, if the situation exists where RIR policy requires that, or to refrain from effecting the transfer in the DB, unless that transfer requested is valid under policy and and the request is made correctly with all normal requirements met.
Would you announce addresses someone had just obtained from ARIN that were already being announced by Microsoft?
Most certainly, some networks would, if assigned space in that block, probably without noticing Microsoft's announcement. -- -JH
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
On 3/24/2011 7:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
Would de-peer with Microsoft (or turn down a transit contract from them) just because they wanted to announce some Nortel address space?
Microsoft would likely be able to find someone who would not turn them down for transit.
Microsoft cannot stop other people from dropping such announcement elsewhere on the DFZ, beyond the transit provider they are paying money to. And that's exactly what the community response should be if ARIN finds that this transaction is bogus: treat it like unallocated space that's been announced. Rubens
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:27:19 -0300, Rubens Kuhl said:
Microsoft cannot stop other people from dropping such announcement elsewhere on the DFZ, beyond the transit provider they are paying money to. And that's exactly what the community response should be if ARIN finds that this transaction is bogus: treat it like unallocated space that's been announced.
They probably *can* stop you from dropping the announcement, by moving Windowsupdate or Hotmail or the XBox network into that address space. Or more correctly, the constantly ringing phones will make you reverse your decision...
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
On 3/24/2011 7:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
Would de-peer with Microsoft (or turn down a transit contract from them) just because they wanted to announce some Nortel address space?
Microsoft would likely be able to find someone who would not turn them down for transit.
Would ARIN really erase the Nortel entry and move these addresses to the free pool if Microsoft doesn't play along with one of the transfer policies?
Unknown. I would expect ARIN to erase entries, if the situation exists where RIR policy requires that, or to refrain from effecting the transfer in the DB, unless that transfer requested is valid under policy and and the request is made correctly with all normal requirements met.
Would you announce addresses someone had just obtained from ARIN that were already being announced by Microsoft?
Most certainly, some networks would, if assigned space in that block, probably without noticing Microsoft's announcement.
It that the right question ? I am sure some networks would also continue to use Microsoft's announcements in this scenario. So, it would be a mess. So, I think that the right question is something more like : If ARIN reassigned the space, and Microsoft continued to announce it anyway, would either announcing entity be have enough of a critical mass that the conflict wouldn't matter to it ? I would submit that any address assignments with continual major operational issues arising from assignment conflicts would not be very attractive. I also don't think that that would be good for the Internet. Regards Marshall
-- -JH
Bankruptcy courts have done this with phone numbers, read my paper - the 'phone number as assets' in bankruptcy cases are cited in there. Just saying Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:24 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I see there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures my question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him: Mr. Rubi is likely already aware from his legal studies that it is imprudent to argue cases in public in advance of filing. /John
So I wonder.... rhetorically speaking.. what happens when a bankruptcy court accidentally sells something that doesn't actually exist, something that is 'fictional', or dead... like an appliance warranty without the appliance, or something that consisted of third parties voluntarily doing something for the original holder, without any promise to continue.... under mistaken belief the third parties had guaranteed something that could be assigned to a successor?
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
E.g. Suppose I gave my neighbors a 100% discount on widgets for their use, just because they were neighbors, it was the community thing to do or something (legacy IP addresses with no agreement, no fees, contracts, etc).
One of them declared bankruptcy, came to the court, and listed as one of their assets "100% widget discounts", and went to sell it to some major retailer, who wants to get a massive number of widgets to resell for profit (my name not mentioned, just as ARIN's name not mentioned)... is there really anything the buyer actually obtains?
I mean, it sounds like someone threw 7.5 million into a furnace, unless they are going specified transfer.... Perhaps they come to ARIN eventually, but ARIN should enforce their policies.
Meaning if MS has an RSA in force, all their resources should be compliant with ARIN policies, and all transfer policies should be followed with regards to justified need.
I have little doubt that MS will properly construct/justify the need if they are obtaining resources. It's probably an easier/cheaper task for them to justify legitimately under RIR policies than trying to find some method of fighting with the community and risking an outcome that could be unfavorable and sully their own reputation in ways that might be hard to predict.
Who knows, they have plenty of resources already and might plan a renumber and return; I would not assume the worst....
-- -JH
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu> wrote:
Bankruptcy courts have done this with phone numbers, read my paper - the 'phone number as assets' in bankruptcy cases are cited in there.
Ernie, Not exactly. Bankruptcy courts have assigned the telephone contracts which include service on a particular number to new entities. If you're aware of a case where that involved a substantive modification of the contract done without the permission of the other party to the contract, I'm all ears.
On a personal note, I'm just a law student and barely 28 y/o, but I'll say it again - I am astounded that people in all kinds of forums have derided me, chastised me and given me the silent treatment during this entire conversation. This was an academic question to me, but apparently lots of folks think it's life or death or semi-religious.
Your paper was a good read and it has a lot of interesting and relevant information. But as with the rest of us, the conclusions you've drawn are untested with important parts of how the industry does business potentially hanging in the balance. You shouldn't take that as a personal slight; it isn't. On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jamie Bowden <jamie@photon.com> wrote:
Does anyone really believe MS is this naïve?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
So I wonder.... rhetorically speaking.. what happens when a bankruptcy court accidentally sells something that doesn't actually exist, ... Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
There are a small number of examples, of intellectual property that exists solely by convention and yet has value. But you're correct: the property structure of IP addresses is ambiguous. We never had to define it because we had free supply, but times are changing.
Meaning if MS has an RSA in force, all their resources should be compliant with ARIN policies, and all transfer policies should be followed with regards to justified need.
If I recall correctly, the ARIN RSA only applies to resources acquired from ARIN. It's a contract for ARIN services and doesn't cover legacy blocks, blocks from other RIRs, etc - it doesn't automatically extend ARIN's authority. On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If ARIN reassigned the space, and Microsoft continued to announce it anyway, would either announcing entity be have enough of a critical mass that the conflict wouldn't matter to it ?
I would submit that any address assignments with continual major operational issues arising from assignment conflicts would not be very attractive.
I also don't think that that would be good for the Internet.
I agree. Which is why ARIN should keep their Whois updated with accurate data, rather than fighting for control of resources beyond RSA scope. Cheers, -Benson
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 08:13:46PM -0500, Benson Schliesser wrote: [snip]
It's obvious that ARIN, as well as other whois database providers, should pay attention to the proceedings. But under what premise might ARIN act as a party to this lawsuit?
The proper question might be that if neither NNI nor MS nor the middlemen believed ARIN to be a relevant party, why would they have bothered sending notification to them? Perhaps it has something to do with one of the many points their 5% fee being hinged upon "the Internet Assets are successfully registered in the name of that buyer, along with the successful registration of related address routes." I presume fulfilling the first part if why Addrex/Denuo are trying to pitch Depository as an something more than just another IRR node (the second part), and notifying ARIN was just hedging their bets. But looping ARIN in could be interpreted as inviting them in... Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
participants (35)
-
Aaron Wendel -
aaron＠wholesaleinternet.net
-
Benson Schliesser -
Bill Woodcock -
Bret Clark -
Christopher Morrow -
David Conrad -
Ernie Rubi -
Eugen Leitl -
Garrett Skjelstad -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jay Nakamura -
Jeff Wheeler -
Jim Gonzalez -
Jimmy Hess -
Joe Provo -
John Curran -
Larry Blunk -
Leo Bicknell -
Marshall Eubanks -
Martin Millnert -
Matthew Kaufman -
Michael DeMan -
mikea -
Nick Hilliard -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
Rubens Kuhl -
Steven Bellovin -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Tom Hill -
Tony Finch -
Tore Anderson -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin