karl@Mcs.Net (Karl Denninger) writes:
Specifically, RFC2008 says:
While it has never been explicitly stated that various Internet Registries use the "address ownership" allocation policy, it has always been assumed (and practiced).
That sentence, in particular the last five words of that sentence, are extremely important. 10+ years of a given practice and set of operating rules cannot be overturned by fiat.
One might notice that these words were written in an RFC. Not in a law book. They have all of the legal weight of a Jim Flem-o-gram. Tony
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 02:13:11PM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
karl@Mcs.Net (Karl Denninger) writes:
Specifically, RFC2008 says:
While it has never been explicitly stated that various Internet Registries use the "address ownership" allocation policy, it has always been assumed (and practiced).
That sentence, in particular the last five words of that sentence, are extremely important. 10+ years of a given practice and set of operating rules cannot be overturned by fiat.
One might notice that these words were written in an RFC. Not in a law book.
They have all of the legal weight of a Jim Flem-o-gram.
Tony
Then so does ARIN's and the IANA's ability to control and delegate addresses. You can't have it both ways. Either the IETF process is valid, in which case the precedents it sets are also valid, or it is not, in which case none of the existing "organizations" have any validity at all, INCLUDING THOSE POSTULATED UNDER THE WHITE PAPER AND THE IANA2 DOCUMENTS. Which would you prefer? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
| > One might notice that these words were written in an RFC. Not in a law | > book. | | Then so does ARIN's and the IANA's ability to control and delegate addresses. | | You can't have it both ways. Either the IETF process is valid, in which | case the precedents it sets are also valid, or it is not, in which case | none of the existing "organizations" have any validity at all, INCLUDING | THOSE POSTULATED UNDER THE WHITE PAPER AND THE IANA2 DOCUMENTS. | | Which would you prefer? Not all RFC's are created equal. RFC 2008 is a BCP. Not everything that the IETF process produces is ex-cathedra. In particular, RFC 2008 is a technical recommendation. Any authority that it may have comes from the fact that it has been adopoted by some organizations as their policy. You should distinguish between their authority to set their own policies and the actual document that those policies are based on. Tony
Karl,
They have all of the legal weight of a Jim Flem-o-gram. Then so does ARIN's and the IANA's ability to control and delegate addresses.
No. ARIN (et al) and the IANA have the ability to control/delegate addresses because by and large, the people who use the Internet, in particular, Internet service providers, mutually agree they have that ability. In other words, the registries are an (arguably) neutral forum which allow end users and service providers to agree who "owns" what address space instead of establishing who has the ability to use addresses in an n^2 multi-lateral fashion. As the Internet service provider community has found it easier to use the registries to impose certain policies/restrictions than to implement those restrictions themselves unilaterally, the registries have become the body that implements allocation policies. If you do not like these policies, your argument is with the Internet service provider community, which strangely enough, now is explicitly in a position to modify those policies. Regards, -drc
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 02:59:36PM -0700, David R. Conrad wrote:
Karl,
They have all of the legal weight of a Jim Flem-o-gram. Then so does ARIN's and the IANA's ability to control and delegate addresses.
No. ARIN (et al) and the IANA have the ability to control/delegate addresses because by and large, the people who use the Internet, in particular, Internet service providers, mutually agree they have that ability.
That's nice David. What you're saying then is that any group of people can get together, and effectively exert monopoly, oligopoly, or otherwise create control structures in a cartel-like environment over the Internet. Uh, no. Not in the US anyway.
If you do not like these policies, your argument is with the Internet service provider community, which strangely enough, now is explicitly in a position to modify those policies.
Actually, no, they are not. I believe that it is fair to say that the majority of ISPs do not support these policies. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
Karl,
What you're saying then is that any group of people can get together, and effectively exert monopoly, oligopoly, or otherwise create control structures in a cartel-like environment over the Internet.
Uh, no. Not in the US anyway.
Ah, then ARIN is a figment of my imagination then. As are the IETF, IEEE, W3C, the ATM Forum, Lockheed Martin (or whoever is running the NANP now), etc. Thanks for pointing this out. You, as an end user or ISP are free to use whatever addresses you care to for whatever purposes you'd like. Of course, other end users and/or ISPs may not care to acknowledge your use of that address space unless there is some mutually agreeable mechanism that defines who "owns" what. The registries provide that mechanism. You (or I) may not like all the policies those organizations use to administer the resources they are responsible for, however its a dirty job -- somebody's gotta do it. The registries were tagged "it" 'cause ISPs couldn't find anyone else to clean up after 'em.
I believe that it is fair to say that the majority of ISPs do not support these policies.
Then why don't they join ARIN and change the policies? Oh, wait. Forgot. ARIN doesn't exist. Regards, -drc
At 04:16 PM 10/5/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 02:13:11PM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
karl@Mcs.Net (Karl Denninger) writes:
Specifically, RFC2008 says:
While it has never been explicitly stated that various Internet Registries use the "address ownership" allocation policy, it has always been assumed (and practiced).
That sentence, in particular the last five words of that sentence, are extremely important. 10+ years of a given practice and set of operating rules cannot be overturned by fiat.
One might notice that these words were written in an RFC. Not in a law book.
Then so does ARIN's and the IANA's ability to control and delegate addresses.
You can't have it both ways. Either the IETF process is valid, in which case the precedents it sets are also valid, or it is not, in which case none of the existing "organizations" have any validity at all, INCLUDING THOSE POSTULATED UNDER THE WHITE PAPER AND THE IANA2 DOCUMENTS.
Which would you prefer?
I dunno, considering that the White Paper process is in critical care ICU, at the moment, and the USG may be hi-jacking the Internet in general. That's a real interesting question. If you've been keeping up with the ICANN issue, and read their Article/by-laws, you'd be wondering the same thing. You might want to drop by the http://www.open-rsc.org web-site, or see what's been happening in DOMAIN-POLICY. FYI: I've been involved with the IFWP process through ORSC/IRSC and support the Boston Working Group (BWG) proposal. Draft 5 Postel is unacceptable to me and anyone else running a gTLD registry, IMHO. As regards the IETF, the RFC's have always been mis named, as they are really defacto InterNet standards. However, note that there is no enforcement. They are NOT a matter of law. In most cases, they are only superficailly complied with. Besides which, most of those standards are along the lines of "If you want to do this, and you want to internetwork with others in this, then this is how you do it". IETF is not a regulatory standards body and don't wish to be. This is why their documents are *called* RFCs, n'est pas? Mostly, MHSC uses the RFCs as a best-practices document set. If we find a better way to do something that fits in our operations plans better, then that's what we'll do. Take RFC2010 for instance. We're re-writing that for internal use, as it's not cost-effective with hardware and modern operational practices/software/systems. We *may* submit the final as an upgrade to 2010. Are regards ARIN and IANA, their only jurisdiction is the public InterNet. Internally, with NAT and VPNs, most ISPs assign their own addresses. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky
participants (4)
-
David R. Conrad -
Karl Denninger -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Tony Li