Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
does your contract with your customers state that the space is non-portable, that they can't take it with them and that they WILL have to renumber ?? If so then they are asking the court to change the contract you and they entered, which i doubt would happen.
the legal risk here is if the court gets it in their head that IP's are like phone numbers and that they (numbers) should be portable......
Judge: "So what exactly is an IP address"
Plantif: "Judge, an IP address is a unique number that is assigned to each computer on my clients network. It unique like a phone number, and like each person in the company has a unique phone number, they must have a unique IP address"
Judge: "So basicly its like a phone number for computers."
Plantif: "Yes"
This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination. Were I the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned telephone number portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain what additional work had to be done to the POTS network to implement portability. Should the plaintiff start mumbling, I'd impugn his credibility, and then ask a bunch of hard questions about SS7 (including the TCAP mechanism for portable number translation), how IP routing works, how IP routing has no authoritative mechanism for global translation, etc. I'd interrogate the customer about DNS and why they weren't able to solve their portability requirement with it. I'd look for detailed familiarity with RFC 2071 and 2072. I wouldn't expect the customer to be able to answer many of these. As the defendant, I would expect to bring in my own expert witness who is very good at explaining these differences, and how the telephone and IP routing environments are different.
also how much space are we talking about here ?? a /19 or a /27 ? or ??? If its smaller than a /20, Hell let them announce it, most places won't take the route and their connectivity will be dorked.
You might also advise ARIN that this customer has IP space that is not being used and that it should be reclaimed as they didn't renumber from your space.
john brown
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:16:48AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
(also sent to nanog)
Should a customer be allowed to force a carrier to allow them to announce non-portable IP space as they see fit to any other carriers of their choosing when they are no longer buying service from the original carrier [that the space is assigned to]?
According to ARIN regulations, the space does not "belong" to us but we have the right to assign or revoke the space to our customers as we see fit. In addition ARIN regulations specifically prohibit us from transferring or selling the IP space to another customer (even if we want to).
NAC has a customer who is leaving NAC. As part of normal procedure (and also because the space provided to us by ARIN is non portable), the customer has been informed that the IP space used by the customer will not be available to be used by the customer subsequent to them leaving us.
It should be mentioned that the following facts exist, and cannot be disputed:
a) customer has obtained space directly from ARIN over a year ago, but has chosen not to renumber from space allocated from us. This was solely their choice, and we did not restrict this in any way.
b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business agreement, and is leaving NAC voluntarily.
Thus, they are attempting to file for and obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO), and ask for the following:
-- start --
"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 current 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 of access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses.
NAC shall provide CUSTOMER with a LOA within 7 days of CUSTOMERS's written request for sale,
NAC shall permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER Address to ANY carrier, IP transit, or IP peering network."
-- end --
In other words, customer is asking a court to rule whether or not IP space should be portable, when an industry-supported organization (ARIN) has made policy that the space is in fact not portable. It can be further argued that the court could impose a TRO that would potentially negatively affect the operation of my network.
NAC does not want to be forced to rely on a customer's ability to properly make complex routing updates that if done improperly could disrupt the entire NAC network. We believe there is a great danger to NAC that their routing mistakes could take down some or all of our network infrastructure.
Another VERY important issue to bring up: If customer is granted the legal right to continue to use IP space that is registered to NAC by ARIN, NAC runs into the very serious problem of being liable for all of the Spam that could be generated by the customer and all of the RBLs that the carrier may be added to [that of course will effect all of NAC's customers] with no ability to revoke the IP space to protect itself. This has to potential to effect the NAC network in a catastrophic manner.
I'd love any comments from anyone. _______________________________________________ "Eat sushi frequently". - Avi inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address. list@inet-access.net is the list posting address. See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options: http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________ "Eat sushi frequently". - Avi inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address. list@inet-access.net is the list posting address. See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options: http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________ "Eat sushi frequently". - Avi inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address. list@inet-access.net is the list posting address. See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options: http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination. Were I the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned telephone number portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain what additional work had to be done to the POTS network to implement portability. Should the plaintiff start mumbling, I'd impugn his credibility, and then ask a bunch of hard questions about SS7 (including the TCAP mechanism for portable number translation), how IP routing works, how IP routing has no authoritative mechanism for global translation, etc. I'd interrogate the customer about DNS and why they weren't able to solve their portability requirement with it. I'd look for detailed familiarity with RFC 2071 and 2072.
I wouldn't expect the customer to be able to answer many of these. As the defendant, I would expect to bring in my own expert witness who is very good at explaining these differences, and how the telephone and IP routing environments are different.
Apples and Oranges. There is something called DNS which handles how hosts are "known" by. The whole reason behind DNS is so a user owns a name but doesn't matter what "number" they have. In the telco world you do not have this option since many businesses advertise their telephone number. (ie: yellow page ads, business cards, advertisements, etc.) When it comes to "the net" IP addresses are irrelevant as people are known by name, names which are transparently resolved to IP addresses. The technology exists so that people don't have to bring IP space with them. The routing tables are big enough as it is and the last thing we need is a bunch of judges comparing number portability to IP space portability. -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor@inoc.net PGP: http://www.inoc.net/~dev/ Key fingerprint = 1E02 DABE F989 BC03 3DF5 0E93 8D02 9D0B CB1A A7B0 Host System Not Responding, Probably Down. Do you want to wait? (Y/N)
At 7:29 PM -0400 6/23/04, Robert Blayzor wrote:
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination. Were I the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned telephone number portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain what additional work had to be done to the POTS network to implement portability. Should the plaintiff start mumbling, I'd impugn his credibility, and then ask a bunch of hard questions about SS7 (including the TCAP mechanism for portable number translation), how IP routing works, how IP routing has no authoritative mechanism for global translation, etc. I'd interrogate the customer about DNS and why they weren't able to solve their portability requirement with it. I'd look for detailed familiarity with RFC 2071 and 2072.
I wouldn't expect the customer to be able to answer many of these. As the defendant, I would expect to bring in my own expert witness who is very good at explaining these differences, and how the telephone and IP routing environments are different.
Apples and Oranges.
My point exactly, that enough explanation will show there is no operational or protocol equivalent to number portability. The defendant has to be prepared to shoot down that argument.
There is something called DNS which handles how hosts are "known" by. The whole reason behind DNS is so a user owns a name but doesn't matter what "number" they have.
Well, yes.
In the telco world you do not have this option since many businesses advertise their telephone number. (ie: yellow page ads, business cards, advertisements, etc.) When it comes to "the net" IP addresses are irrelevant as people are known by name, names which are transparently resolved to IP addresses.
The technology exists so that people don't have to bring IP space with them. The routing tables are big enough as it is and the last thing we need is a bunch of judges comparing number portability to IP space portability.
Again, I don't see how we are in disagreement. What I was describing was an approach to getting the judge and/or jury to see they are NOT the same thing.
participants (2)
-
Howard C. Berkowitz -
Robert Blayzor