[apnic-talk] Re: [ifwp] Re: The Board
Karl and all,
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > > I disagree. There is clearly a thing, which I will call a property right,
> > > which is the ability to control the contents of the zone files loaded into
> > > what what we call "the root".
> > > ...
> > > With regard to address space -- yes, anyone can yank a number out of the
> > > air and try to send route announcements.
> >
> > Not "try to send". Anyone with a well-connected autonomous system
> > can send pretty much whatever announcements they like. In fact
> > people do this all the time; I suppose that a list of such
> > announcements is still published weekly on nanog.
>
> I'm on the nanog mailing lists and it isn't published weekly.
>
> And many, if not most, carriers are not blindly accepting routing
> advertisements anymore.
>
> It is becoming increasingly the case that the address assignments are
> vetted against what is on the books of the address assignment bodies.
>
> > > But there is a database of "assigned numbers" that network operators look
> > > to (or rather, are increasingly looking to) for legitimacy of the routing
> > > advertisements that they will accept.
> > >
> > > This database is the distributed collection of allocations made via IANA
> > > and the three regional allocators.
> > >
> > > The right/privilege to add entries to that database is a right which can
> > > be assigned, licenced, or delegated. I call that a property right.
>
> > There is consensus that Internet routing works on a cooperative basis.
> > There is no consensus that anyone owns address space.
>
> OK, let's start this afresh -- whether or not anyone "owns" the
> address space, somebody certainly has the ability to allocate blocks
> from that space and have those allocations honored (albeit by
> voluntary decision.)
>
> the right/privilege of making that allocation is itself an "ownable"
> right, a property right. We recognize that implictly when we pay
> ARIN, RIPE, or APNIC their fees and when we don't ask for allocations
> from Jon Q. Random.
Exactly correct. And this is what need to be looked into more closely. ARIN
has a terrible reputation that is well known amongst many ISP's as to how
and what IP allocations it determines are appreciate for a request. The
current RFC's 2050 and 1918 are woefully inadequate for the purposes
of policy yet they are what is being used. This only the tip of the iceberg
however, ARIN has been very unsuccessful in having returned any over
allocations that large ISP's and Telcos have been hoarding for some time. This
FACT was readily admitted some time ago on the ARIN mailing list by
ARIN officials themselves. I could go on but I think you get the picture.
Allowing the RIR's to continue in this role under the present policies would
be gross mistake for their Internet community. Hence the need to define
allocations in a different way possibly as Karl indicates here.
>
>
> > There is consensus that IANA's role is to facilitate cooperation.
> > This is the way the Internet works.
>
> I'd put that latter sentence in past tense. If cooperation were
> voluntary, then Chis Ambler could have perfectly well have simply
> fired up emacs and enterered .web into the root zone.
>
> > What you are doing is creating a useless distraction. We do not need
> > a pointless debate about who owns IP address space and we especially do
> > not need a debate about whether IANA owns that address space.
>
> Well, I rather disagree. If we are building a cognizable, stable,
> legal structure that is going to manage something, we'd better be
> precise about what that thing is.
I couldn't agree more with Karl on this point. This must be done.
>
>
> > You don't own our routers. IANA doesn't own our routers. US law
> > doesn't apply to our routers.
>
> Nobody is trying to dictate the numbers you put into your routers.
> However, if you go against the grain of allocations by the recognized
> allocation authorities you will find that your advertisements are
> filtered or blocked by others. And indeed, you could possibly find
> yourself at the wrong end of a lawsuit for interference with business
> by whoever had the "legitimate" assignment of those numbers.
Yep. And this lies at the hart of the IP allocation policies problem.
>
>
> It is that ability to create "legitimate" assignments that is the
> property right.
Exactly correct.
>
>
> The water that falls from the skys as rain may be free, but when you
> are thirsty, nobody is obligated to give you a drink for free.
> Similarly, addresses may be free as sunlight, but the right/privilege
> to be a recognized authority for allocation is not free.
Good analogy Karl. And an exactly correct conclusion. This is why the
STAKEHOLDERS must be the driving force or contain the power predominantly
in the IP allocation policies, not nIANA or the RIR's.
>
>
> > > If we don't have the ability to exclude others then what we have is a
> > > commons. And if it is a commons, then anybody and his brother will have
> > > as much right to use and modify the root zone or the address allocations
> > > as does any entity we establish. And that would be chaos.
> >
> > You simply do not understand. IP address space is indeed a commons. And
> > there would be chaos - if people did not cooperate.
>
> If we retain voluntary cooperation as the basis of the Internet, then
> no one can complain should someone decide to march to the beat of a
> different drummer and advertise network numbers in conflict with
> others or to modify the root zone, either by direct editing or by
> taking advantage of DNS server flaws.
And this has already been demonstrated.
>
>
> If we want true voluntary cooperation, I suggest that we really do it
> -- we put the root zone file, the whois files, and the files
> containing ARIN, RIPE, APNIC's allocation records onto a pubicly
> accessible Unix box under an account without a password and with mode
> 777 in a directory with mode 777 and let everybody edit those files
> without any constraints whatsoever. That would be voluntary
> cooperation.
Well I would add a proviso here Karl. Each data element that is not part of
YOUR particular record can only be modified by YOU. Everyone should have
browse access however.
>
>
> Anything less implies restrictions. And it is the power to impose
> those restrictions and limitations that is the property rights we are
> talking about.
>
> --karl--
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
> username=ifwp password=ifwp
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp at lists dot interactivehq dot org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy at interactivehq dot org or call 202-408-0008
>
> ___END____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *