Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
BTW, in which state did this occur? Any additional pointers? Thanks, - ferg -- Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net> wrote: Please read -- this is lengthy, and important to the industry as a whole. We ask for, and solicit, comments, letters of support, etc., for our position. We are looking for people to take a position on this, and come forward, perhaps even to provide an affidavit or certification. Something along the lines of a 'friend of the court' brief, or even comments as to why we are wrong. [...] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
The action is taking place in the Superior Court of State New Jersey. Please contact me offlist if you are interested in helping further. On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
BTW, in which state did this occur? Any additional pointers?
Thanks,
- ferg
-- Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net> wrote:
Please read -- this is lengthy, and important to the industry as a whole. We ask for, and solicit, comments, letters of support, etc., for our position. We are looking for people to take a position on this, and come forward, perhaps even to provide an affidavit or certification. Something along the lines of a 'friend of the court' brief, or even comments as to why we are wrong.
[...]
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
AR> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:42:26 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time) AR> From: Alex Rubenstein AR> The action is taking place in the Superior Court of State New AR> Jersey. If the Court considers it a state matter, and lacks the ability to regulate interstate commerce, does that mean out-of-state ISPs recognizing ARIN's authority are not required to listen to the announcements? IANAL. 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.
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:36 AM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
If the Court considers it a state matter, and lacks the ability to regulate interstate commerce, does that mean out-of-state ISPs recognizing ARIN's authority are not required to listen to the announcements?
Who cares what the court thinks? Are you mentioned in the TRO? If not, do a quick look at all CIDRs in ^8001$ and find any sub-CIDRs without _8001_ in the path. Your routers, you decide what to do with the prefix. Of course, if you just happen to uphold INTERNET STANDARDS and only accept routes from where they should originate, I'll buy you a drink at the next NANOG for being a good netizien. :)
IANAL.
IANAL. Hell, I'm not even an ISP. :) -- TTFN, patrick
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:44 AM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Of course, if you just happen to uphold INTERNET STANDARDS and only accept routes from where they should originate, I'll buy you a drink at the next NANOG for being a good netizien. :)
P.S. That was a serious offer to any and all ISPs. Yes, I realize I am opening myself to buying quite a few drinks, but that's the point, or at least the hope. Just let me know you are ... uhhh ... "adhering to Internet standards" (in private e-mail) by the end of the week to claim your drink. :) -- TTFN, patrick
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:47:42AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:44 AM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Of course, if you just happen to uphold INTERNET STANDARDS and only accept routes from where they should originate, I'll buy you a drink at the next NANOG for being a good netizien. :)
P.S. That was a serious offer to any and all ISPs.
Yes, I realize I am opening myself to buying quite a few drinks, but that's the point, or at least the hope. Just let me know you are ... uhhh ... "adhering to Internet standards" (in private e-mail) by the end of the week to claim your drink. :)
Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who has been enjoined from "directly or indirectly" preventing the customer from using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but it needs to be clear that you aren't doing this at NAC's request, and even so, the judge may take a dim view of NAC's involvement. Bob
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Bob Snyder wrote:
Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who has been enjoined from "directly or indirectly" preventing the customer from using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability.
Of course, using this line of reasoning, NACs original email to the list could easily be argued to be an indirect intervention. If I were the TRO holder, and my announcement started to become a new bogon, I'd be at the judges doorstep with the entire NANOG thread in my hand :-/ //Alif
On Jun 29, 2004, at 9:28 AM, Bob Snyder wrote:
Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who has been enjoined from "directly or indirectly" preventing the customer from using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but it needs to be clear that you aren't doing this at NAC's request, and even so, the judge may take a dim view of NAC's involvement.
NAC had nothing to do with this. I have a long history in this and other forums of promoting aggregation, with the notable exception of multi-homed *TRANSIT CUSTOMERS* announcing routes via BGP. Suggesting providers not accept prefixes which violates both my personal views and standard Internet doctrine is not something Alex told me to do. In fact, I applaud his discretion for not even mentioning the prefix, customer, AS, or anything else which would even HINT that he would violate the court order. In fact, I have suggested that he not do so here in this forum, and Alex has posted language from the TRO stating he is barred from doing so. IOW: This is simply another _operational_ suggestion to help make the Internet run more smoothly. -- TTFN, patrick
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
NAC had nothing to do with this. I have a long history in this and other forums of promoting aggregation, with the notable exception of multi-homed *TRANSIT CUSTOMERS* announcing routes via BGP. Suggesting providers not accept prefixes which violates both my personal views and standard Internet doctrine is not something Alex told me to do.
To anyone considering doing something like this. Please do not resort to vigilante justice. While I agree that NAC should not have to route this IP addressing to someone else's network, the TRO is exactly that Temporary. NAC and a customer had a dispute. That dispute is before a court. The court said there would be no immediate harm to NAC to continue providing this IP addressing to their customer (NAC is still being compensated for it). If this customer tries to do something that causes NAC immediate harm, then NAC can bring that before the court. We are not to act on the courts behalf to harm another Internet provider under any circumstances. Do also understand that you are seeing one side of the case presented on NANOG. The other side has chosen not to play this out in a public forum. UCI tried to work this out with NAC. Now they are trying to work this out with a judge. Don't add NANOG and the network community to the list of people they have to reconcile with once this is over. The court has not GIVEN the IP addressing to UCI. They just forbid NAC from cutting UCI's legs out from underneath them while UCI moves. I think UCI poses some interesting questions about NAC's business practices in their case. Alex, while I think it sucks that a court had to force you to assist a customer in leaving your services, it doesn't sound like they had much choice from the TRO. I'd recommend you focus your efforts on explaining to a judge the issues that were brought up in the suit and forget about involving NANOG in your court disputes. Gerald A former customer of NAC who can sympathize with UCIs position.
participants (7)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
Alif Terranson -
Edward B. Dreger -
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) -
Gerald -
Patrick W Gilmore -
rsnyder＠toontown.erial.nj.us