Re: [ATTN JLB CC] Re: [sig-policy] Forwarded reply from Gordon Bader
It was I that made the remarks based on current international law and
trade agreements in respect to IP allocation policy considerations and/or
proposals. Dr. Baptista was supportive of those remarks I made, not the
originator of them. However Dr.Baptista was of course also correct
based on historic practice that the legal "Backwaters" of which he referred
to are indeed very formative obstacles if APNIC seeks to impose any
IP allocation policies that are not in agreement with the stakeholders/users
of whom those policies effect or would be subjected to.
As APNIC does not currently enjoy the broad support of many
Asian countries such as China for instance, determining IP allocation
policy determination by APNIC without those large and growing numbers
of Chinese and other asian countries stakeholders/users, will face legal
challenges based on existing and some recent agreed upon and singed
trade agreements dealing in part with ecommerce. As such it would be
wise to consider more seriously how such policy considerations/proposals
are arrived at internal to APNIC or any other RIR's before going about
a process that is currently not inclusive enough...
GB wrote:
> Good Day Everyone,
>
> I absolutely agree with the comments of Mr. Baptista. This proposal
> is legally explosive, and it is a backwater area that has been
> overlooked. Additionally, there probably are no contracts on various
> areas of IP space.
>
> However, that being said and agreed to, just because something is
> hard, does it make it not worth doing? The reason why this is a problem
> is because of these conditions. The reason the dark IP address space
> is being used, is because it is not being controlled as it should be.
> In a perfect system this would not happen. Some service carriers are
> filtering out dark space. Some are keeping their routing tables as
> clean as possible, while others are not.
>
> Let me return to my original argument. APNIC's primary function is
> to help bring control to the internet and to allocate IP space. If it
> does not control various areas of the IP address space it has been
> allocated then APNIC is not doing it's job. The problem will only get
> worse. Is this the proper proposal? I do not know, that is your call.
> I do know that if nothing is done, specifically due to the problems you
> cite, the problem will get worse and it will be more difficult to regain
> control in the end.
>
> As we all know the people who are using the unallocated IP address
> space, are using it for purposes that would cause them to loose their
> Internet access with a normal ISP due to their APUs. So they set up
> shop in "no-man's land", thus thinking that their access can not be
> denied. So far it appears that they are correct. APNIC has not
> allocated them access. The carriers who's routing tables route to the
> dark space are allocating them the space, the service, and essentially
> recognizing their "right" to use the space. Essentially "squatter's
> rights". The carriers who are providing them access through compromised
> routing tables are essentially for all purposes ceding ownership to
> their Internet access on behalf of everyone. That returns us to
> APNIC's charter providing for control and IP allocation. That also
> leaves us with the question of what can and will be done?
>
> In the early days, UseNet administrators reserved the death penalty
> for users who did not comply with some basic standards. You cause no
> problems, you stay connected. A number of years ago, I remember the
> @home service nearly receiving the "death penalty" for their lack of
> actions on behalf of their users. This proposal operates along the same
> lines. There was no UseNet contracts that were available to enforce.
>
> Again I know that this is uncharted. However, I again ask, how will
> APNIC regain control and how will carriers (at all levels) be forced to
> stop providing access to users who have "claimed" various segments of
> unallocated IP address space?
>
> With regards,
> Gordon
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>>APNIC has the ability to grant IP space. Given that ability, it also
> >>>>>>has the inherent ability to remove what was granted. The implicit
> >>>>>>grant of IP space, carries with it the ability to route, and route
> >>>>>>in a "legal" manner. When "illegal" (dark address space) routing is
> >>>>>>detected, then the price should be loss of the initial grant - in this
> >>>>>>case the ability to operate which carries with it economic measures.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
> >Your gettin into legally explosive backwaters here. I know of many who
> >have address space outside the control of the RIR - in many cases no
> >legal agreements exists.
> >
> >Much of this no mans land is in North America and a few other countries.
> >
> >The RIR in fact control nothing but the reverse arpa. Routing is between
> >the provider and the IP administrator.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>>Routing tables should be configured for non routing (filtering) of
> >>>>>>unallocated IP address space as well as allocated IP address space.
> >>>>>>Traffic to and from unallocated (or allocated but unused) IP address
> >>>>>>space should be dropped as soon as recognized, thus saving bandwidth up
> >>>>>>channel.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
> >???
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>>Employ the basic law - what can be given, can be taken away. APNIC
> >>>>>>should issue a warning first, followed by removal of IP space from the
> >>>>>>offending ISP or entity at what ever level. IP addresses are provided
> >>>>>>under a contract, thus using contract law, removal is possible.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
> >Again I clearly point out - alot of IP address space is not under contract.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>I don't quite understand how APNIC can be invloved in this, and how
> >>>>>effective it would be in addressing the problem. I hope you can
> >>>>>clarify this a little bit more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >You can't - it's not your business to act as judge nor jury.
> >
> >regards
> >joe baptista
> >
> >
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827