Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
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 (network@nac.net), 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.
What you really should try is to have ARIN provide "friend of the court" brief and to explain to judge policies and rules in regards to ip space, so you need to have your laywer get in touch with ARIN's lawyer. You can probably even force them to provide a statement or testimony (if they don't volunterily) as part of discovery process. P.S. You might as well provide name of the customer now. Since its gone through court, its all now public info (i.e. TRO) anyway. On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, 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 (network@nac.net), 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.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:38:12PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
What you really should try is to have ARIN provide "friend of the court" brief and to explain to judge policies and rules in regards to ip space, so you need to have your laywer get in touch with ARIN's lawyer. You can probably even force them to provide a statement or testimony (if they don't volunterily) as part of discovery process.
P.S. You might as well provide name of the customer now. Since its gone through court, its all now public info (i.e. TRO) anyway.
http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
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 all rather interesting, but for anyone writing contracts for the type of service this customer purchased (colo+IP?), what must we include that your contract did not include? Do you specify something about "use of IP addresses" for a certain term? Was there any ambiguous language about ownership or allocation of IP space? Did you charge per block of IPs allocated to the customer? As far as other ISPs helping out in the form of a letter to the court, what do you need beyond a "well, this is one more route we need to carry that we shouldn't have to" and "How do I know how to properly report abuse issues regarding this block"? Thanks, Charles
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:44:43AM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote: Hi,
As far as other ISPs helping out in the form of a letter to the court, what do you need beyond a "well, this is one more route we need to carry that we shouldn't have to" and "How do I know how to properly report abuse issues regarding this block"?
I would go even further: if there is a dispute over the so-called ownership of a netblock, there is no party who can guerantee proper routability and technical responsability so I would probably blackhole it. As for the netblock: I just did a quick scan and here is what I found: 64.21.0.0/17 *[BGP/170] 3d 17:52:24, MED 64, localpref 210 AS path: 6320 8001 I 64.21.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 3d 17:52:49, localpref 100 AS path: 3356 3561 6347 25702 I I'm not sure wether or not 64.21.1.0/24 is the disputed netblock, but this seems the only more specific without AS8001 in the path. -- Sabri, "I route, therefore you are"
SB> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:34:03 +0200 SB> From: Sabri Berisha [ editted ] SB> As for the netblock: I just did a quick scan and here is what SB> I found: SB> I'm not sure wether or not 64.21.1.0/24 is the disputed SB> netblock, but this seems the only more specific without SB> AS8001 in the path. oregon-ix shows _8001_25702$ for that netblock. Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone actually think they would have a clue? Here is the solution: Black ball the /24 that the customer is taking with them. Black hole any AS that announces that /24 'illegally'. The courts don't need to follow the RFC or even know what the acronym stands for. The Internet should follow the RFC and should come to the defense of NAC and the Internet routing table. Any AS that picks up that customer and announces the netblock gets their entire AS routed to Null0. Pretty simple really, doesn't matter what the courts do. They don't have jurisdiction over me or any other ISP for that matter. They cant tell me what I do to my routers. The result is NAC removes the offending /24 from their announcements and follows the TRO so they don't get in trouble. The Internet heals around the courts TRO by rejecting that /24 from anyone else. The customer must change to their own IPs or they lose access completely. OrgName: Net Access Corporation OrgID: NAC Address: 1719 STE RT 10E Address: Suite 111 City: Parsippany StateProv: NJ PostalCode: 07054 Country: US ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.nac.net:43 NetRange: 207.99.0.0 - 207.99.127.255 CIDR: 207.99.0.0/17 NetName: NAC-NETBLK01 -Matt
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:45:40 -0400, Matthew Crocker <matthew@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@gmail.com
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:02 PM, Brad Passwaters wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:45:40 -0400, Matthew Crocker <matthew@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
From my understanding the customer has their own IP space allocated by ARIN and has had that space for over a year. They have already had adequate time to transition to their own space. The Internet routing table should not suffer due to the laziness of one customer. I can see if NAC kicked the customer off their network the *may* have a case. Maybe CYMRU could add the netblock to their bogon route servers with a different community. Then ISPs could choose to black hole as desired. Black holing is a drastic step but I think decisive action needs to be taken the Internet at large to protect the routing table. I know I would *love* to gain ownership of some of my space I have from Sprint. I'm too lazy to move out of that space but I do continue to by bandwidth from Sprint (have been doing so for 10 years now). If this holds up, maybe I'll try and sue Sprint ;) *this is a joke.... I'm not that irresponsible to the 'net*
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:15:33PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
Black holing is a drastic step but I think decisive action needs to be taken the Internet at large to protect the routing table. I know I would *love* to gain ownership of some of my space I have from Sprint. I'm too lazy to move out of that space but I do continue to by bandwidth from Sprint (have been doing so for 10 years now). If this holds up, maybe I'll try and sue Sprint ;) *this is a joke.... I'm not that irresponsible to the 'net*
If you feel like having NAC held in contempt of court so that you can whine about the routing table, go right ahead. And you wonder why judges don't listen to engineers some days. Sheesh. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
OK... I'll take the risk here... These guys look to be gross address polluters -- Here's what I found: 1. Pegasus Web Technologies is listed as AS25653 (ARIN whois) 2. route-views.oregon-ix.net has the following to say about prefixes with origin in AS25653 (only the first listed path is shown for each prefix): route-views.oregon-ix.net>$ quote-regexp "_25653$" | include ^...[0-9] *> 64.21.40.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 64.247.26.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 64.247.27.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 64.247.30.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 64.247.31.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 64.247.34.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 64.247.35.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 64.247.47.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.3.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.28.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.32.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.33.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.35.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.36.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.37.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.38.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.39.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.40.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.41.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.42.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.43.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.44.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.49.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.50.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.51.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.52.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.53.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.54.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.55.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.60.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.62.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.63.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.64.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.65.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.74.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.75.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.76.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.77.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.78.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.85.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.86.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.87.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.88.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.89.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.97.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.98.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.106.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.107.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.108.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.109.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.110.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 66.246.111.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i * 69.9.165.0/24 216.218.252.152 0 6939 4436 29791 25653 i * 69.57.160.0/19 216.218.252.152 0 6939 8001 25653 i * 69.72.128.0/18 216.218.252.152 0 6939 8001 25653 i * 69.72.192.0/19 216.218.252.152 0 6939 8001 25653 i * 69.72.224.0/19 216.218.252.152 0 6939 8001 25653 i *> 207.99.34.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 207.99.104.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 207.99.126.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 209.123.49.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 209.123.61.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 209.123.73.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 209.123.134.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 209.123.184.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 209.123.246.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i *> 209.123.247.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i * 209.123.252.0/22 193.0.0.56 0 3333 6320 8001 25653 i * 216.67.224.0/19 216.218.252.152 0 6939 8001 25653 i *> 216.118.123.0 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i Of those, the following prefixes appear to have non-NAC transit paths: 69.9.165.0/24 And the following are not exclusively "8001 25653" 69.72.128.0/18 69.72.192.0/19 69.72.224.0/19 216.67.224.0/19 I am not encouraging anyone to take any specific action WRT these prefixes, and, I have not been asked or encouraged directly or indirectly by Alex Rubenstein or any other NAC employee to post this. In fact, I have not been contacted by anyone from NAC other than Alex's original pre-TRO post. I have done this research of my own choosing based on other posts from the community and am posting the results purely for informational purposes. Owen
These guys look to be gross address polluters -- Here's what I found: *> 64.21.40.0/24 209.123.12.51 0 8001 25653 i
hmmm notice that all of these /24's are from ^_8001_ which peers with route-views.oregon-ix.net which may from time to time include internal iBGP prefixes that are otherwise not advertised to regular transits/peers, to their way of making to GRT. What you pasted is what route-views.oregon-ix.net sees. What I see is: *> 69.9.165.0/24 63.239.36.245 1923 100 0 209 3549 4436 29791 25653 i *> 69.57.160.0/19 63.239.36.245 1923 100 0 209 701 8001 25653 i *> 69.72.128.0/18 63.239.36.245 1923 100 0 209 701 8001 25653 i *> 69.72.192.0/19 63.239.36.245 1923 100 0 209 701 8001 25653 i *> 69.72.224.0/19 63.239.36.245 1923 100 0 209 701 8001 25653 i *> 216.67.224.0/19 63.239.36.245 1923 100 0 209 701 8001 25653 i What cidr-report.org sees: 69.9.165.0/24 4637 4436 29791 25653 69.57.160.0/19 4637 8001 25653 69.72.128.0/17 4637 8001 25653 + Announce - aggregate of 69.72.128.0/18 (4637 8001 25653) and 69.72.192.0/18 (4637 8001 25653) 69.72.128.0/18 4637 8001 25653 - Withdrawn - aggregated with 69.72.192.0/18 (4637 8001 25653) 69.72.192.0/19 4637 8001 25653 - Withdrawn - aggregated with 69.72.224.0/19 (4637 8001 25653) 69.72.224.0/19 4637 8001 25653 - Withdrawn - aggregated with 69.72.192.0/19 (4637 8001 25653) 216.67.224.0/19 4637 8001 25653 -J -- James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
On Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 12:15:33PM -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
From my understanding the customer has their own IP space allocated by ARIN and has had that space for over a year. They have already had adequate time to transition to their own space. The Internet routing table should not suffer due to the laziness of one customer. I can see if NAC kicked the customer off their network the *may* have a case.
Without getting into the rights and wrongs of this case, this did flag up a couple of things that I noticed in the document: 1) They say that they are hindered in their renumbering by not being able to get a large enough block of addresses from ARIN (I forget the exact wording). Does this mean that NAC were lax with their IP allocation policy and let the customer have more addresses than ARIN policies would otherwise allow? If their new allocation is really the biggest issue, why not just go back and ask ARIN more nicely? 2) They say they have to write custom software to allow the renumbering. Is this related to them having to fit into a smaller address block? Otherwise, I don't see why there's such a big issue about having to write *new* software because of an IP renumber. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x(01)37720) | Si fractum Technology Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x(01)37701) | non sit, noli BBC Internet Ops | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk | id reficere BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Simon Lockhart wrote:
1) They say that they are hindered in their renumbering by not being able to get a large enough block of addresses from ARIN (I forget the exact wording). Does this mean that NAC were lax with their IP allocation policy and let the customer have more addresses than ARIN policies would otherwise allow? If their new allocation is really the biggest issue, why not just go back and ask ARIN more nicely?
I've seen similar claims by others before. Having gone through the procedure myself, I'd guess one of two cases. 1) Pegasus did a poor job with their ARIN-NET-ISP request and failed to convince ARIN that they were efficiently utilizing the amount of PA IP space they wanted to replace with PI and renumber into or the speed with which they intended to renumber. 2) ARIN gave Pegasus an initial allocation insufficient to cover their entire network with the understanding that Pegasus would begin renumbering and do another ARIN-NET-ISP request when they'd used up the initial allocation and returned a similar amount of IP space to NAC. I doubt anyone will comment as to which of these is closest to reality. Case 2 wouldn't surprise me at all when the space involved is much more than ARIN's minimum allocation.
2) They say they have to write custom software to allow the renumbering. Is this related to them having to fit into a smaller address block? Otherwise, I don't see why there's such a big issue about having to write *new* software because of an IP renumber.
They probably either meant custom software (perhaps just shell scripts) to partially automate parts of the renumbering process, or that whatever software they use on their hosting resale systems is somewhat inflexible with IP addressing and would need to be hacked to deal with dual IP blocks during the transition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Matthew Crocker wrote:
The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone actually think they would have a clue?
Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that court made an incorrect decision (it however should have been more clear enough on when TRO would end in regards to ip space). If you read through http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/plantiff-affidavit1.pdf you'll see that NAC was blackmailing their client because they knew they could not quickly move out and so it permitted them to charge highier fees then they did other customers. Now, I do note that is probably just one side of the story, so likely there would be another side as this progresses through court (hopefully Richard will keep the webpage current with new documents), atlthough I have to tell you what I saw mentioned so far did not show NAC or its principals in the good light at all. Now as far as TRO, its by definition "temporary order", but I do wish that the temporary part was more emphasised as far as IP addresses and it was made clear that client MUST work on moving out of their existing NAC ip blocks and that space is not theirs to keep and they MUST given it to back to NAC. Now "reasoanble timeframe" is not exactly very precise defition (although this is what RFC2050 says I think), ARIN usually allows for 12 months as far as "reasonable" timeframe to renumber, personally I think this is MAX timeframe to do so and as far as TRO should be taken as last deadline, but that court must set shorter deadline and review process (like ever 3 months) to make sure client is complying and moving out or NAC space. If that is done, I would not have a problem with TRO. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that court made an incorrect decision (it however should have been more clear enough on when TRO would end in regards to ip space). If you read through
It is very likely that Pegasus made the correct decision to protect their business, regardless what a bunch of engineers on NANOG think about the IP space question. It also seems that the TRO is about far more than IP space (i.e. the continuation of full transit services, at existing contract rates).
then they did other customers. Now, I do note that is probably just one side of the story, so likely there would be another side as this progresses through court (hopefully Richard will keep the webpage current with new documents), atlthough I have to tell you what I saw mentioned so far did not show NAC or its principals in the good light at all.
I would like to post the NAC response to this so that we can hear all sides of the story, but unfortunately the case was moved from the US District Court back to the NJ Superior Court, where I no longer have easy access to the documents. I would be happy to take offline submissions of the legal filings from anyone willing to waste more on this than the $0.07/page that PACER charges. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
quite frankly, looking at the TRO (thanks Richard for posting them here), UCI has requested permission to use Prior UCI Addresses being part of NAC, until September 1st, 2004. i am failing to see the problem with this TRO, given that customer is simply requesting relief & guarantees that their move-out operation to new facility shall go unrestricted and not interfered by NAC. granted, the actual order fell from the court doesn't specifically state 9/1/04 as the deadline (which would be the policy issues w/ IP address portability), I think we need to take a look at both side's opinions and situations before blackholing NAC->UCI leased IP space(s) out of the blue as some here on this mailing list have stated they would do so. all i can see here is that UCI, being a customer is simply interested in doing what they can do to protect their business. moving entire business operational assets between colocation facilities is not an easy task, and can be quite risky for them. yes, i would take issues if UCI is simply requesting permanent portability of the IP space administrated by NAC, but so far looking at the documents, it appears UCI seems to be requesting enough period of time to help with their transition to the new facility, including enough time for renumbering of IP addresses in the process. Page 15, 45. of http://e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/restraining-order.pdf my 0.02 -J On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:24:44PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that court made an incorrect decision (it however should have been more clear enough on when TRO would end in regards to ip space). If you read through
It is very likely that Pegasus made the correct decision to protect their business, regardless what a bunch of engineers on NANOG think about the IP space question. It also seems that the TRO is about far more than IP space (i.e. the continuation of full transit services, at existing contract rates).
then they did other customers. Now, I do note that is probably just one side of the story, so likely there would be another side as this progresses through court (hopefully Richard will keep the webpage current with new documents), atlthough I have to tell you what I saw mentioned so far did not show NAC or its principals in the good light at all.
I would like to post the NAC response to this so that we can hear all sides of the story, but unfortunately the case was moved from the US District Court back to the NJ Superior Court, where I no longer have easy access to the documents. I would be happy to take offline submissions of the legal filings from anyone willing to waste more on this than the $0.07/page that PACER charges. :)
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
-- James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
Hi James, i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given. This too isnt uncommon and the usual thing that occurs at this point is the customer negotiates with the supplier for an extension in service which they pay for. These guys seem to not want to admit they've failed to plan this move, dont want to pay for their errors and are now either panicking or trying to prove a point to NAC. Steve On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, James wrote:
quite frankly, looking at the TRO (thanks Richard for posting them here), UCI has requested permission to use Prior UCI Addresses being part of NAC, until September 1st, 2004. i am failing to see the problem with this TRO, given that customer is simply requesting relief & guarantees that their move-out operation to new facility shall go unrestricted and not interfered by NAC.
granted, the actual order fell from the court doesn't specifically state 9/1/04 as the deadline (which would be the policy issues w/ IP address portability), I think we need to take a look at both side's opinions and situations before blackholing NAC->UCI leased IP space(s) out of the blue as some here on this mailing list have stated they would do so.
all i can see here is that UCI, being a customer is simply interested in doing what they can do to protect their business. moving entire business operational assets between colocation facilities is not an easy task, and can be quite risky for them. yes, i would take issues if UCI is simply requesting permanent portability of the IP space administrated by NAC, but so far looking at the documents, it appears UCI seems to be requesting enough period of time to help with their transition to the new facility, including enough time for renumbering of IP addresses in the process.
Page 15, 45. of http://e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/restraining-order.pdf
my 0.02
-J
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:24:44PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that court made an incorrect decision (it however should have been more clear enough on when TRO would end in regards to ip space). If you read through
It is very likely that Pegasus made the correct decision to protect their business, regardless what a bunch of engineers on NANOG think about the IP space question. It also seems that the TRO is about far more than IP space (i.e. the continuation of full transit services, at existing contract rates).
then they did other customers. Now, I do note that is probably just one side of the story, so likely there would be another side as this progresses through court (hopefully Richard will keep the webpage current with new documents), atlthough I have to tell you what I saw mentioned so far did not show NAC or its principals in the good light at all.
I would like to post the NAC response to this so that we can hear all sides of the story, but unfortunately the case was moved from the US District Court back to the NJ Superior Court, where I no longer have easy access to the documents. I would be happy to take offline submissions of the legal filings from anyone willing to waste more on this than the $0.07/page that PACER charges. :)
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Hi,
Hi James, i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given.
This too isnt uncommon and the usual thing that occurs at this point is the customer negotiates with the supplier for an extension in service which they pay for.
These guys seem to not want to admit they've failed to plan this move, dont want to pay for their errors and are now either panicking or trying to prove a point to NAC.
I tend to agree. Reasonable time to migrate appears to be reasonable "grace period." If unreasonable planning, hard (for me) to understand need for unreasonable "grace period." 'reasonable' of course in need of a defintion, but from what I see most (but perhaps not all, these days... so I may be wrong) service providers allow sufficient "grace period" to make the technical needs fly. I'm far from sure non-technical issues should imply extended "grace period." Hrm,... My few ören (or french or canadian cents, if preferred :) mh
Steve
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, James wrote:
quite frankly, looking at the TRO (thanks Richard for posting them here), UCI has requested permission to use Prior UCI
part of NAC, until September 1st, 2004. i am failing to see the problem with this TRO, given that customer is simply requesting relief & guarantees that their move-out operation to new facility shall go unrestricted and not interfered by NAC.
granted, the actual order fell from the court doesn't specifically state 9/1/04 as the deadline (which would be the policy issues w/ IP address portability), I think we need to take a look at both side's opinions and situations before blackholing NAC->UCI leased IP space(s) out of the blue as some here on this NAC->mailing list have stated they would do so.
all i can see here is that UCI, being a customer is simply interested in doing what they can do to protect their business. moving entire business operational assets between colocation facilities is not an easy task, and can be quite risky for them. yes, i would take issues if UCI is simply requesting permanent portability of the IP space administrated by NAC, but so far looking at the documents, it appears UCI seems to be requesting enough period of time to help with their transition to the new facility, including enough time for renumbering of IP addresses in the process.
Page 15, 45. of http://e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/restraining-order.pdf
my 0.02
-J
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:24:44PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0700,
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Actually, after reading most of the papers which
Richard just made
available at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that court made an incorrect decision (it however should have been more clear enough on when TRO would end in regards to ip space). If you read through
It is very likely that Pegasus made the correct decision to protect their business, regardless what a bunch of engineers on NANOG think about the IP space question. It also seems that the TRO is about far more than IP space (i.e. the continuation of full
at existing contract rates).
then they did other customers. Now, I do note that is probably just one side of the story, so likely there would be another side as this progresses through court (hopefully Richard will keep the webpage current with new documents), atlthough I have to tell you what I saw mentioned so far did not show NAC or its
Addresses being transit services, principals in the good light at all.
I would like to post the NAC response to this so that we can hear all sides of the story, but unfortunately the case was moved from the US District Court back to the NJ Superior Court, where I no longer have easy access to the documents. I would be
happy to take
offline submissions of the legal filings from anyone willing to waste more on this than the $0.07/page that PACER charges. :)
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:07:32 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote:
Hi James, i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you read the filings? This is not the customers position. Since I have only the customers filings and the judges TRO online it maybe that NAC has counter claims of their own. However in that case both parties would have put forth reasonable postions and the I believe the standard then would be that the judge would have to look at the harm done to both parties. In the case of the customer they present an at least passable case that this will cause them to be put out of business. Thus the judge says, Ok you keep paying NAC what you were paying them and NAC you work with them to transtion NAC can certainly challenge the TRO as indicated in the document itself
This too isnt uncommon and the usual thing that occurs at this point is the customer negotiates with the supplier for an extension in service which they pay for.
And they claim they did but that NAC did not negotiate in good faith. Also that as NAC has indicated a desire to purchase them may have reason not to negotiate in good faith. -- Brad Passwaters ------------------------------------------ brad.passwaters@gmail.com
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brad Passwaters wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:07:32 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote:
Hi James, i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you read the filings? This is not the customers position. Since I have only the customers filings and the judges TRO online it maybe that NAC has counter claims of their own. However
The customer's unhappy.. but I dont see anything bad going on here.. The customer's wording is sloppy for a legal doc and they have silly points raised, like because nac wont accept payment by credit card they are forced to pay off their outstanding balance hence having to pay twice (one to the card one to nac) .. well duh .. thats how it works. Non-portability of IP space is well known, sure, its hard work and I wouldnt wish to do it but its normal - right? Yeah theyre upset, this story has history that we're not seeing and I'm sure for that reason NAC are playing hard ball here. But I dont think wrt the question of leaving NAC and the timescales and cancellation process involved that anything illegal or unexpected is occuring.
in that case both parties would have put forth reasonable postions and the I believe the standard then would be that the judge would have to look at the harm done to both parties. In the case of the customer they present an at least passable case that this will cause them to be put out of business. Thus the judge says, Ok you keep paying NAC what you were paying them and NAC you work with them to transtion NAC can certainly challenge the TRO as indicated in the document itself
Presumably the judge is unsure and doing what seems to be a sensible option.. I hope the customer is using the time well to do some renumbering pdq!
This too isnt uncommon and the usual thing that occurs at this point is the customer negotiates with the supplier for an extension in service which they pay for.
And they claim they did but that NAC did not negotiate in good faith. Also that as NAC has indicated a desire to purchase them may have reason not to negotiate in good faith.
Maybe, happens.. again dont know the history, not sure its important.. Steve
Hi James, i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you read the filings? This is not the customers position. Since I have only the customers filings and the judges TRO online it maybe that NAC has counter claims of their own. However
The customer's unhappy.. but I dont see anything bad going on here..
It is very simple - Plaintiff files a motion. Defendant tries to have it dismissed (or maybe for whatever reason decides that as the network engineers they don't care about what a court has to say and ignores it) Plaintiff shows that he has a case. Defendant is unable to convince a judge that the plaintiff is full Judge grants the TRO. Defendant waves arms on nanog-l. Moral - When a legal system is involved, use the legal system, not the nanog-l. The former provides provides ample of opportunities to deal with the issues, while the later only provides ample of opportunities to do hand waving.
The customer's wording is sloppy for a legal doc and they have silly points raised, like because nac wont accept payment by credit card they are forced to pay off their outstanding balance hence having to pay twice (one to the card one to nac) .. well duh .. thats how it works. Non-portability of IP space is well known, sure, its hard work and I wouldnt wish to do it but its normal - right?
The customer wording happened to be excellent - and TRO is a proof of it. The court does not care about the good of internet and portability/non-portability of IP address space because it is not the case in front of it.
Presumably the judge is unsure and doing what seems to be a sensible option..
Never presume. Always file. Alex
If you read through http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/plantiff-affidavit1.pdf you'll see that NAC was blackmailing their client because they knew they could not quickly move out
I think that argument is close to being bogus. The agreement doesn't say that they have to be out in 45 days: Following a mailing of a notice of an increase of base prices, customer shall have ten days from the effective date of the increase to provide NAC with a written request to terminate service. ... If customer elects to terminate, such notice shall be effective thirty days following receipt of customer's notice to terminate. So, it's 45 + 10 + 30 = 85 days. They mention 60 megawatts of power. It seems to me that the focus shouldn't be on the easy task of renumbering a /24 in 85 days (is it really just a /24?), but on moving the servers :-) There is mention of increased power charges (up to $18,000) and usage of 60Mw. Isn't $20/amp/month still a standard charge in co-lo sites? If so, $18,000 buys 900amps. With 120V service, we get (120*900)/1.67 = 65kw. 65kw over 30 twenty-four hour days is about 47Mw. So, the customer is getting a deal. -mark
Mark, I suspect they confused 'mega' with 'kilo'.
They mention 60 megawatts of power. It seems to me that the focus shouldn't be on the easy task of renumbering a /24 in 85 days (is it really just a /24?), but on moving the servers :-)
There is mention of increased power charges (up to $18,000) and usage of 60Mw. Isn't $20/amp/month still a standard charge in co-lo sites? If so, $18,000 buys 900amps. With 120V service, we get (120*900)/1.67 = 65kw. 65kw over 30 twenty-four hour days is about 47Mw. So, the customer is getting a deal.
-mark
-- Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications 994 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-213-1302 Cell: 650-207-0372 Fax: 650-969-2124
joe mcguckin <joe@via.net> wrote:
I suspect they confused 'mega' with 'kilo'.
No, it's just the unit got mangled through sloppy usage. It was written as "60 megawatt hours", i.e. 60,000 kWh of energy. Any ISP that drew 60MW would probably be visible from space :) -- PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse@mooli.org.uk for full key
Alex, Not being a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion, but my opinion is: What state court issued the TRO. A TRO usually is a legal technique to allow a condition to continue or not continue until a court of competent jurisdiction can "review" the issues. Since the addresses are not "owned" by the ISP that let the "customer" use them than it is difficult to ascertain how the court can "order" the ISP to do or not do something with those addesses. As is good form on the Net I assumed that the customer had a domain that they were "assigned" as well as the acutal IP address. With a normal channge of the A record (i presume) in the DNS the "new address" that the customer will get from the new "isp" will then be utilized. The court of competent jurisdiction, which in my mind would be the appropriate Federal Court for that circuit would have to order the "old" ISP to give away a leased item from ARIN and order the "new" ISP to accept it and to advertise it. Since it is my understanding that Congress and the Executive branch have made "ARIN, etal" the custodian of the IP addresses for the public good the Federal Court would potentially have an issue with interfereing with the normal course of ARIN activity. My issues that I would ask the court about is why a State Court (I Presume) has jurisdiction on what is an interstate matter as well as the abridgement of personal property rights of the ISP and ARIN. (If I lease my car and I quit paying they come and take it back, I do not get to keep it since I have been driving it for the last few years) The customer if there is no longer a contract in places would appear to have no standing in the court and since they can get their DNS entry updated thay can keep there "address" not the IP address but the DNS address. John Lee (ISDN - It suites Dennis's needs) 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 (network@nac.net), 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.
participants (19)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
Alex Rubenstein -
alex＠yuriev.com -
Brad Passwaters -
Charles Sprickman -
Edward B. Dreger -
James -
joe mcguckin -
John L Lee -
Jon Lewis -
Mark Kent -
Matthew Crocker -
Michael Hallgren -
Owen DeLong -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Sabri Berisha -
Simon Lockhart -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
william(at)elan.net