In message <199810052200.PAA15671@bb.rc.vix.com>, "David R. Conrad" writes:

Karl,

...

Actually, there's every reason to believe that if you have space from prior to the adoption of RFC2008 and 2050 you indeed do have something which is (1) property, and (2) valuable if someone is willing to pay you for it.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly on this list and elsewhere, there are people who place not-insignificant value on addresses. The pragmatic among us would probably argue that even after 2008/2050 or any other pronouncement by any involved party, address space has value and in fact has had and will have value as long as it provides an opportunity for a service that has value. Arguments to the contrary are approximately equivalent to arguing the tide should not come in 'cause it messes up our nice sand castles.

From previous discussions it appears to me that address space only has value if it is globally reachable. And previously there has been discussion from organizations that state they would follow the guidlines and policies reached by the community and address transfer and validity. Thus, if ARIN disallowed a trasnfer, it is like that some percentage of large connectivity oriented organizitions, would refuse connectivity to this space.

I'm sure Karl will point out how this is a violates US law and is an unlawful monopoly. Then again, so is De-Beers who still operates with impuntity in the US, so the effectivitness of US law against these multinational consiparcy. So I'm not sure the US and its laws are an effectivity regulatory agency for this growing international problem. RIPE already operates an address verification service that service providers can use to verify the validity of a prefix. ARIN is discussing a route registry service.

From the people I've seen and talked to, my sense is that providers and users of the internet today, largely don't want to see the buying and selling of so called legacy space.

I guess I'll start to worry about it when the US Marshells show up on my doorstep. In the meantime the rest of us have an Internet to run. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net

Oh, I'm quite certain that the "registries" will recognize a court order, which, if they refuse to recognize a reassignment, is precisely what they *should* be forced to recognize. -- -- 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. On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 08:43:26AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:

Sure addresses have intrinsic value, BUT the problem is that attempting to effect the transfer of title is an exercise in futility given that none of the regional registeries will honour the transaction.

Now given that the original 'owner' details remain constant, it raises the interesting question of how many suckers can be conned into the buying the same class B. The Broklyn Bridge is a useful precedent here, btw.

With a means of registering the transaction, the value of the address space in the current trading market remains heavily discounted. Unfortunately this trading makes a mockery of the validity of the allocation registeries, and the longer we sit in denial mode over address trading the more probable the problems ISPs will face over attempting to trace actual address ownership, in order to avoid senseless litigation over incorrect address advertisements in the routing space.

Geoff

At 03:14 PM 10/5/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:

...

David,

Actually, there's every reason to believe that if you have space from prior to the adoption of RFC2008 and 2050 you indeed do have something which is (1) property, and (2) valuable if someone is willing to pay you for it.

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.

-- -- 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.

On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:47:01AM -0700, David R. Conrad wrote:

...

Hi,

Seems scanning ARIN's database for B's is becoming a trend. Anybody want to provide the procmail incantation to forward flems and other wasted bits (like this message) to Gabriel automatically?

Don't these people realize addresses have no value? After all, addresses are just integers. Right, Bill? :-)

Hmmm. At last! A way to cover the upkeep costs for my black helicopter (they're so useful, I didn't want to return it when I left APNIC)! As APNIC's 16 Bs are still registered to me, I see a _wonderful_ profit potential -- anybody got the URL for the Address Black Market, I seem to have misplaced it...?

...

Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 06:57:07 GMT From: "CommuniTech.Net, Inc." <gabriel@communitech.net> Subject: Class B Purchase To: <davidc@apnic.net>, <gabriel@communitech.net>

My name is Gabriel Murphy and I am with CommuniTech.Net, a rapidly growing Internet Presence Provider. I am writing you today to inquire if you might be interested in selling the Class B you have registered through the American Registry of Internet Numbers.

As you may or may not know, ARIN is no longer issuing Class B blocks. Our business is growing quickly and the availability of IP Addresses is fundamental to our business going forward.

If you are interested in selling the Class B you have through ARIN, please contact me personally at gabriel@communitech.net. We realize that an outright purchase of a Class B would be expensive, but it is extremly important to

Regards, -drc --------------- the

...

future of our business. We are quite serious about this inquiry and hope to hear from you soon.

Best Regards,

Gabriel Murphy CommuniTech.Net Inc. http://www.communitech.net

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 07:28:17AM -0500, Brett Frankenberger wrote:

:: Karl Denninger writes ::

...

Oh, I'm quite certain that the "registries" will recognize a court order, which, if they refuse to recognize a reassignment, is precisely what they *should* be forced to recognize.

Of course. If a class B is sold, and ARIN is ordered by federal court to register it to the buyer, I'm confident that they will.

I'm also confident that it would be heavily discussed on lists such as this one.

I think it's at least possible that some major providers would refuse to accept that route, in spite of the fact that ARIN's database would claim that it's valid. Since ARIN has no enforcement power -- networks can accept or reject whatever routes they like -- what then? Does the buyer then get a court order ordering every provider to accept the route? Even if you can get such an order (and I'd be skeptical), it won't guarantee you reachability from outside the USA.

- Brett (brettf@netcom.com)

Collusive behavior is a big, big problem Brett. I'd love to see exactly this kind of thing take place - it would be hilarious to see some of those providers try to defend THAT. -- -- 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.

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 09:55:07AM -0500, Derek Balling wrote:

...

Collusive behavior is a big, big problem Brett. I'd love to see exactly this kind of thing take place - it would be hilarious to see some of those providers try to defend THAT.

Is it then collusive behavior for network providers to band together and use the RBL to deny network and/or mail traffic?

Same basic principle - a group of network providers who categorically deny access and through traffic to address space(s) which don't conform to arbitrary standards of the list-maker.

Not that I disagree with the RBL at all, but I'm curious as to how you think the two similar issues differ.

They are massively different both in scope and intent. Among other things: 1. "Address registries" levy fees and impose effective monopoly control over address space. The RBL does not impose any effective monopoly control, it is not a fee-paid-service, and in fact neither is SMTP traffic exchange in the norm. 2. You can always go somewhere else to relay (or send) your email if you find yourself RBLd. You can't go somewhere else to get address space (back to central control again). 3. RBL-free access is not an essential facility. IP address space is. This is an incredibly important distinction, in that it triggers all kinds of special treatment from the US Government when it comes to non-discriminatory access to that facility. 4. Historically speaking, nobody "owns" lists of acceptable SMTP relaying conduct (or lack thereof). Historically speaking, people and firms *DO* own address space, as documented in RFC2008 (just try to revoke Apple's Class A, or MIT's, neither of which meets TODAY's "efficient utilization" criteria and see how many seconds it takes for the lawsuits to start flying. You're tampering with private property rights here, and you have no right to do so) 5. Collusive conduct which is designed to and/or acts to restrain trade and limit competition is frequently unlawful in the United States. Keeping your speech off my computer is not unlawful - in fact, it is my private property right to do so. However, were I to *COLLUDE WITH OTHERS* to put you out of business (or increase your cost of doing business) by refusing to accept your traffic, you'd have every right to sue my ass off - regardless of whether or not I am doing it via SMTP or at the packet level. That's for openers. The two concepts you mention as being "similar" have, in fact, almost nothing in common. -- -- 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.

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:44:18PM -0400, Phillip Vandry wrote:

...

...

Same basic principle - a group of network providers who categorically deny access and through traffic to address space(s) which don't conform to arbitrary standards of the list-maker.

Not that I disagree with the RBL at all, but I'm curious as to how you think the two similar issues differ.

They are massively different both in scope and intent. Among other things:

1. "Address registries" levy fees and impose effective monopoly control over address space. The RBL does not impose any effective monopoly control, it is not a fee-paid-service, and in fact neither is SMTP traffic exchange in the norm.

Fees are irrelevant. A monopoly is not a monopoly if they don't charge people money?

...

2. You can always go somewhere else to relay (or send) your email if you find yourself RBLd. You can't go somewhere else to get address space (back to central control again).

That is only a difference in scope of deployment. It is still, as Derek argued, the "Same basic principle". What if the same number of people had confidence in the RBL as in ARIN's authority to delegate addresses?

...

3. RBL-free access is not an essential facility. IP address space is. This is an incredibly important distinction, in that it triggers all kinds of special treatment from the US Government when it comes to non-discriminatory access to that facility.

You cannot send mail if the whole world has RBL'ed you. That's arguably essential.

...

4. Historically speaking, nobody "owns" lists of acceptable SMTP relaying conduct (or lack thereof). Historically speaking, people

I "own" (RFC2008 sense) ARIN approved IP addresses. I also "own" RBL approved domain names (that is, they are not on the RBL). If domain names were as limited a resource as IP addresses are, my domain names would be as precious as my IP addresses, and an RBL domain name would have the same value as a rogue block of IP addresses.

...

5. Collusive conduct which is designed to and/or acts to restrain trade and limit competition is frequently unlawful in the United States. Keeping your speech off my computer is not unlawful - in fact, it is my private property right to do so. However, were I to *COLLUDE WITH OTHERS* to put you out of business (or increase your cost of doing business) by refusing to accept your traffic, you'd have every right to sue my ass off - regardless of whether or not I am doing it via SMTP or at the packet level.

Then you have to decide whether the action is being done with the intent of restraining trade and limiting competition. That would depend on the case. Cooperation to use the RBL might just as likely be found by a court to be illegally collusive as cooperation to ignore somebody's route announcement.

Really, it is the "same basic principle".

-Phil

You're right. BTW, I wasn't arguing for the RBL :-) *Privately maintained and non-published* (to other than customers) lists used only by you are one thing. Public blacklists are another, and can under certain circumstances get you in serious trouble. -- -- 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.

On 10/06/98, Brett Frankenberger <brettf@netcom.com> wrote:

I'm also confident that it would be heavily discussed on lists such as this one.

"Discussed" is too benign a word for what'd happen here. Seems to me, however, that everybody "discussing" this issue needs to remember that until it actually happens, everything we might say here on NANOG is pure conjecture. -- J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cp.net> Have you hugged your backups today? Special Agent In Charge (Abuse Issues) Critical Path, Inc. ------ Critical Path is hiring in all departments! ------

On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:

Oh, I'm quite certain that the "registries" will recognize a court order, which, if they refuse to recognize a reassignment, is precisely what they *should* be forced to recognize.

The danger of applying for a court order is that you get the registry's lawyers involved. At that point it becomes a legal battle that will be decided in front of a judge and if that judge is in the USA, it will cost you a pretty penny regardless of whether you win or lose. Since there is virtually no case law to set legal precedent, it will be extremely difficult for a company to win a legal case against the registries. And what it all boils down to is simply this. A. Sprint won't listen to small adress block announcements. B. It is hard for a network with a small address block assignment to multihome, in fact they are at a disadvantage compared to their competitors. C. Trade is being restrained. My advice in this instance would be to sue Sprint for antitrust violations because if you win then you get triple damages awarded and Sprint definitely has the bank account to pay out on the award. Forget the registries. They are just trying to do the best they can in the awkward situation that was created by Sprint. -- Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com

On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, David R. Conrad wrote: [somewhat irrelevant history lesson deleted]

Yeah, let's sue.

Frankly, with comments like this, I feel Sprint is approaching terminal stupidity for keeping the filters in place.

This is precisely my point. History is nice but it lives in the past. We live in today and Sprint's filters are a pretty clear indication that Sprint's management believes it can get away with manipulating the market. Smart managers would have gotten rid of those filters when the technical necessity for them disappeared. Smart managers would have sat down with their industry colleagues in a neutral forum like ARIN and made sure that their *TECHNICAL* policies were in sync with the need for stability and managed change. The policies that once were technical policies instituted by Sean Doran are no longer technical policies but a crass manipulation of the marketplace to Sprint's advantage as the archives of this list prove quite amply.

I'm sure they have a lovely business case for keeping the filters active (or they wouldn't have lasted this long)

Indeed they do. Just look at the archives of this list. Someone complains about not being able to get a /19 and they are advised to make sure that one of their upstreams is Sprint. This is a clear violation of antitrust laws and Sprint management knows this fact and although they were advised 4 months ago to get rid of the filters, they have not acted.

I also think the registries should actually be registries and not try to be the Internet's mommy.

IMHO it is part of an IP registry's job to make sure that applications for IP address space meet the publicly agreed upon criteria. And if that criteria says that you need to justify the quantity of addresses you receive, it may be mommy work but it is necessary work. But I want to know why ARIN cannot simply issue an appropriately sized portable block of addresses to anyone who is legitimately multihomed? Why can't ARIN maintain a register of companies who are multihomed and tag their IP allocations, of whatever size, as "portable". I suppose we could sidestep Sprint and use the swamp addresses which Sprint filters on a /24 boundary. But why can't we just carve off a chunk of 214/8 and "register" it to organizations who need portable space in chunks smaller than /19? This just makes too much sense to me. -- Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com

...

I also think the registries should actually be registries and not try to be the Internet's mommy.

IMHO it is part of an IP registry's job to make sure that applications for IP address space meet the publicly agreed upon criteria. And if that criteria says that you need to justify the quantity of addresses you receive, it may be mommy work but it is necessary work. But I want to know why ARIN cannot simply issue an appropriately sized portable block of addresses to anyone who is legitimately multihomed? Why can't ARIN maintain a register of companies who are multihomed and tag their IP allocations, of whatever size, as "portable". I suppose we could sidestep Sprint and use the swamp addresses which Sprint filters on a /24 boundary. But why can't we just carve off a chunk of 214/8 and "register" it to organizations who need portable space in chunks smaller than /19?

This just makes too much sense to me.

Michael, Could you define "legitimately multihomed" please? Kim

-- Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 07:56:59PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote:

...

Michael,

Could you define "legitimately multihomed" please?

I think that a prime example would be a site such as progressive networks, cnn (turner), msbnc, or any other high traffic site.

They will be multiply connected to major providers, but most use some sort of ip director, and all their machines sit on the same /24.

Although I don't like the way some of these peoples networks are built, they don't have enough machines/servers to justify anything more than a /24 or even at most a /22, but still need provider independent space as they may show up at regional exchange points.

The best bet for these people in some cases is to go hunt for space that is "available", as ARIN and folks won't allocate such space.

Their other option is to sit on the network block of one of their providers, but some people do have issues with announcing other providers address space (like it's against their internal policies).

This would be a semi-justfiable use of a portable block less than a /19, would it not?

- Jared

Speaking for myself (not ARIN or its members) I would say yes, however, it's easy to list examples of multi-homed but we would need to either list every acceptable example or state one definition that doesn't make ARIN's staff have to subjectively decide which organization is "legitimately" multi-homed. From my experience (not to mention ARIN's Advisory Council) this is more difficult than it seems. Kim

On Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 12:40:12AM -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote:

Frankly I don't see policy changing, unless people provide helpful feedback to the registries and advisory councils. And when providing feedback its important to be clear and to the point, a lot of these people are very busy and can't bother with personal attacks and flames.

Its already to late to make the agenda for the Oct 15th AC meeting.

--- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net

Why bother Jeremy? The legitimate items passed and given to the board at the LAST Arin AC meeting have not yet been implemented by the Board. Specifically, the relaxation of the minimum allocable prefix from /19 to /20. -- -- 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.

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 08:18:39PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:

...

They will be multiply connected to major providers, but most use some sort of ip director, and all their machines sit on the same /24.

about a year ago, i suggested arin allocate these folk /24s from swamp space with very strong qualifications.

I agree. Determining who these handful of people are should be reasonably easy, they tend to be large sites already dedicated to providing such services though. A clear example of someone in the future would be a streaming audio/video site with the latest and greatest technology. I was curious, so took a quick look at the cnn.com bgp announcement (/24), if you look at this, and think for a second, if they (AS5662) were connected to MCI/CW rather than Sprint, they would be unreachable with this announcement, other than the fact that ANS would be announcing the aggregate, and following that path, rather than having the actual as-path be traversed. - jared route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip b 207.25.71.0 255.255.255.0 longer-prefixes BGP table version is 111835909, local router ID is 198.32.162.100 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 207.25.71.0 206.157.77.11 0 0 1673 1333 5662 i * 204.42.253.253 0 267 1225 701 5662 5662 i * 204.212.44.129 1 0 234 1225 701 5662 5662 i * 202.232.1.8 0 2497 701 5662 5662 i * 129.250.0.1 0 0 2914 1 5662 5662 i * 192.121.154.25 0 1755 1800 1239 5662 5662 i * 144.228.240.93 59 0 1239 5662 5662 i * 193.0.0.56 0 3333 286 1 5662 5662 i * 158.43.206.96 0 1849 702 701 5662 5662 i * 194.68.130.254 0 5459 5413 1 5662 5662 i * 134.55.24.6 0 293 1 5662 5662 i * 12.127.0.249 0 7018 5662 5662 i * 134.24.127.3 0 1740 7018 5662 5662 i *> 4.0.0.2 640 0 1 5662 5662 i * 204.70.4.89 0 3561 1 5662 5662 i * 129.250.0.3 0 0 2914 1673 1333 5662 i -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/

core and then extrapolate legitimacy from that. Two 14.4kbps upstream providers wouldn't fit the bill.

On the other hand, how many people running dual 14.4's are really running BGP sessions over them? Is a specific bit-rate/sec required when that would be even harder to verify than multiple upstream connections? what about people with dual residential xDSL connections? -Deepak.

At 12:30 AM 10/7/98 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:

...

core and then extrapolate legitimacy from that. Two 14.4kbps upstream providers wouldn't fit the bill.

On the other hand, how many people running dual 14.4's are really running BGP sessions over them? Is a specific bit-rate/sec required when that would be even harder to verify than multiple upstream connections? what about people with dual residential xDSL connections?

I'm still getting over the 14.4Kbps connections. Why aren't they dual 33.6kbps at the least, mybe 56kbps? At least, 28.8kbps ... but 14.4kbps?!?!?!? They need to spend a few shekels on modems! I suppose it's better than 9.6kbps.<sigh> I'll ROTFALMAO if I hear someone trying an InterNet connection at 300 baud. ___________________________________________________ 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

I won't. But, what is the InterNet? On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Greg Simpson wrote:

...

I'll ROTFALMAO if I hear someone trying an InterNet connection at 300 baud.

Done it, and routed a /24 :)

Don't ask.

-g

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. October 26-28, 1998, Atlanta, GA. Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com/ for information and registration. Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 04:00:35PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:

addresses to anyone who is legitimately multihomed? Why can't ARIN maintain a register of companies who are multihomed and tag their IP allocations, of whatever size, as "portable". I suppose we could sidestep Sprint and use the swamp addresses which Sprint filters on a /24 boundary. But why can't we just carve off a chunk of 214/8 and "register" it to organizations who need portable space in chunks smaller than /19?

This just makes too much sense to me.

Michael, I am technically oriented, but my experience is at the local ISP level, and I've never done any kind of infrastructure planning. So maybe I am missing something here, but I still fail to see why on God's green earth Progressive Networks needs a /19 besides the fact that they might not get announced otherwise. They aren't going to *use* that many addresses. Is Sprint the only backbone with a policy of not announcing small blocks? (I'm not responsible for the maintenance of any BGP feeds, either. ;) -- I'm not paranoid. Nor are any of the people who are out to get me.

...

A. Sprint won't listen to small adress block announcements. Everyone always talks about NSPs that won't listen to small address announcements. Does anyone know of other providers besides Sprint that are in fact enforcing similar policies?

yes. randy

At 06:17 AM 10/6/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:

Oh, I'm quite certain that the "registries" will recognize a court order, which, if they refuse to recognize a reassignment, is precisely what they *should* be forced to recognize.

I don't think "the courts will resolve this mess" is a reasonable or likely response given the larger international context in which this address allocation resides. As a counter point, I'm equally certain that the "registries" will have a difficult time figuring out _which_ court has jurisdiction in any given dispute, given that the planet seems to be stuffed to the brim of both courts and lawyers :-) The problem is that address prefixes _are_ being traded, and as the registry policies do not recognize this activity, the task for an ISP to validate a client's request to route an arbitrary address prefix is largely one of uninformed guesswork. I'm sure most ISPs would see the potential for liability in such a situation. But I do not see the courts as the means of resolving this situation. Yes we need a more realistic registry role where the registry role is more akin to that of a title registration office, but the courts will not provide us the wherewithal to get to that point with a set of processes and tools which support an accurate routing system where each routing entry can be authenticated to its current "owner". You can call me a faithless heathen if you want, but I just don't see why the legal process should have any deeper insight into solving this problem than the rest of us weenies! Geoff