Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alex Rubenstein:
b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business agreement, and is leaving NAC voluntarily.
The customer probably has a different opinion on this particular topic, doesn't he?
No. This is a clear situation where the customer has canceled his service with us in writing.
If there's a contract dispute, it actually makes a lot of sense to issue the order you quoted. There's no harm to you (or the Internet as a whole) because the customer just appears to be another multi-homed customer of yours, provided that the prefix that is involved reaches a certain size. OTOH, if you were allowed to reassign the IP address space while the dispute is being resolved, this could severely harm the customer's business.
Of course, this setup can be just temporary. If you are ordered to permanently give up that particular prefix, then you'll have reason to complain.
I can't address all of the points you raise, but I can say the following: a) NAC did not terminate the customers service in any respect. The customer chose, on his own, to terminate their service with us. This fact is undisputed. Also, NAC was willing to continue the customers service (we were not forcing them out the door). b) In regards to your passage, "because the customer just appears to be another multi-homed customer of yours", this is a key point. The customer *WILL NOT* be a customer of NAC any longer once they physically leave. The key point here is that the customer has gotten a TRO, which allows them to take the IP address space that is allocated to NAC with them, and NOT HAVE ANY SERVICE FROM NAC. NAC WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE NETWORKS THAT THEY ARE MULTIHOMED TO. c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this policy were to stand, what prevents cable modem users, or dialup users, or webhosting customers, the right to ask to take their /32 with them? Regards,
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
No. This is a clear situation where the customer has canceled his service with us in writing.
Ok, important point.
b) In regards to your passage, "because the customer just appears to be another multi-homed customer of yours", this is a key point. The customer *WILL NOT* be a customer of NAC any longer once they physically leave. The key point here is that the customer has gotten a TRO, which allows them to take the IP address space that is allocated to NAC with them, and NOT HAVE ANY SERVICE FROM NAC. NAC WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE NETWORKS THAT THEY ARE MULTIHOMED TO.
This is ths real issue. The restraining order forces you to deliver services to the (ex)customer. Why? Because both the court and apparently the customer do not understand the issue. So things like handing the IP space back to ARIN, assuming it was the only customer on the /24 or you could renumber you other ones, would still be a bad idea. You can play a lot of technical games, but in general courts really dislike technical games. They don't understand them, and consider it close to being in contempt of the court. So the best option you have left is put the ignorance's cost on the people who deserve it. Invoice ex-customer an exorbitant amount of money to keep the infrastructure he needs for his IP's to remain working, *within* your facility. Being under a restraining order doesn't mean you are not entitled to be reimbursed of the costs of the result of such a restraining order. Also, it is not your problem that he can't use his IPs once he moves. He will need to pull a wire, and that happens to be very *very* expensive with NAC, and even if he doesn't want to do business with NAC, he can't use someone elses services. Send the bill. Ensure the payment expires as soon as possible. Then, even if you cannot disconenct the customer until a higher/sane court looked at the matter, you are clearly showing good faith to the courts and the customer, and might actually be awared those bills in a higher court. And talk to the EFF (Cindy Cohn), they might have had similar cases or jurispudence that matches this case closely. You might also want to talk to Robin Gros (former EFF, now IP-Justice) since she might have had similar cases happening when she was working at the EFF herself. And yes, I would also put the restraining order verbatim on a website and solicit comments on it publicly. Paul
Alex, I think one avenue of approach will be to see if ARIN would grant you another contiguous block to replace not just what the customer got but the entire block they have polluted. If they will not, as I suspect, then you can show that the TRO while upholding the status quo is causing you harm, since the space is not something that can be replaced. -vb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Rubenstein" <alex@nac.net> To: "Florian Weimer" <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:47 AM Subject: Re: Can a customer take IP's with them?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alex Rubenstein:
b) customer is exercising the right not to renew the business
agreement,
and is leaving NAC voluntarily.
The customer probably has a different opinion on this particular topic, doesn't he?
No. This is a clear situation where the customer has canceled his service with us in writing.
If there's a contract dispute, it actually makes a lot of sense to issue the order you quoted. There's no harm to you (or the Internet as a whole) because the customer just appears to be another multi-homed customer of yours, provided that the prefix that is involved reaches a certain size. OTOH, if you were allowed to reassign the IP address space while the dispute is being resolved, this could severely harm the customer's business.
Of course, this setup can be just temporary. If you are ordered to permanently give up that particular prefix, then you'll have reason to complain.
I can't address all of the points you raise, but I can say the following:
a) NAC did not terminate the customers service in any respect. The customer chose, on his own, to terminate their service with us. This fact is undisputed. Also, NAC was willing to continue the customers service (we were not forcing them out the door).
b) In regards to your passage, "because the customer just appears to be another multi-homed customer of yours", this is a key point. The customer *WILL NOT* be a customer of NAC any longer once they physically leave. The key point here is that the customer has gotten a TRO, which allows them to take the IP address space that is allocated to NAC with them, and NOT HAVE ANY SERVICE FROM NAC. NAC WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE NETWORKS THAT THEY ARE MULTIHOMED TO.
c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this policy were to stand, what prevents cable modem users, or dialup users, or webhosting customers, the right to ask to take their /32 with them?
Regards,
VJB> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:33:28 -0400 VJB> From: Vincent J. Bono VJB> I think one avenue of approach will be to see if ARIN would VJB> grant you another contiguous block to replace not just what VJB> the customer got but the entire block they have polluted. I thought of that, too. However, that would require NAC renumbering an entire /17 because an ex-customer is too lazy to renumber a /24.[*] If NAC's ex-customer thinks renumbering a /24 is excessive, what about something two orders of magnitude larger? [*] I'm assuming Sabri's lookups yielded a correct answer. 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 Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
c) In regards to the tail-end of your mail, what you propose (the temporary reassignment of space to an ex-customer) is in (as I intepret ARIN policy) direct contradiction and violation of ARIN policy. If this policy were to stand, what prevents cable modem users, or dialup users, or webhosting customers, the right to ask to take their /32 with them?
That's an unrealistic (exaggerated) end result if this case becomes precedent. Among networks that filter incoming BGP routes, AFAIK, it's common policy to ignore >/24 prefixes. Announcing /32 routes into BGP would not give anywhere near the global reachability as doing the same with /24 or shorter prefixes. If the [ex-]customer is and remains multihomed (pretty likely if they got PI space), this doesn't even change the size of the global routing table. I assume we have their route now through NAC and some other provider. In a few weeks, we'll still see their route through the other provider and perhaps a new other provider. I still don't agree with what they've done. If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know. I suspect Alex can't post it without being in violation of the TRO since he knows what we'll do with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
JL> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT) JL> From: Jon Lewis JL> If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know. I don't know the rogue netblock, but http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001 may prove insightful. I believe there are people who track announcements and withdrawals; BGP history probably would prove insightful. 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 Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
JL> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT) JL> From: Jon Lewis
JL> If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know.
I don't know the rogue netblock, but http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001
More likely the block in question is being announced by different ASN or announced as part of large NAC space and as such will not show up directly on the above page. I've suspicions this maybe Pegasus Web Technologies (AS25653), who are probably largest NAC customer (at least based on how often their name is seen when querying rwhois.nac.net) and who got direct ARIN ip block 69.57.160.0/19 right about year ago on 6-20-2003 (but before they already had ip block 216.67.224.0/19 and afterwards they received 69.72.128.0/17 from ARIN in September 2003). In addition to all that they are using lots of other blocks which are the ones directly from NAC space, since NAC is using custom whois server, I can't quickly create exact list, but my estimate it it maybe close to /18. They are probably just lazy to work on moving out of that space, eventhough more then likely they promised to do that two years ago or more when they got first direct ARIN block. But I'm just speculating here, we'll not know for sure until we see large chunk of NAC space announced from somewhere else without having even one NAC transit route in any route server (and if its indeed comes 25653, then my guess is right). -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced litigator, the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be striving to educate the court to understand more accurately the legal and policy issues involved. Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO
On Jun 29, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Ray Plzak wrote:
I have assigned the ARIN General Counsel, who is an experienced litigator, the task to review and prepare the necessary filings to either intervene formally in the New Jersey case, or as an amicus. ARIN will be striving to educate the court to understand more accurately the legal and policy issues involved.
I would like to publicly applaud ARIN stepping up to the plate on this. (Sorry for the AOL-ish post, but ARIN gets a lot of bad press here and I figure they deserve kudos when they Do The Right Thing.) -- TTFN, patrick
participants (8)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
Edward B. Dreger -
Jon Lewis -
Patrick W Gilmore -
Paul Wouters -
Ray Plzak -
Vincent J. Bono -
william(at)elan.net