APNIC Home APNIC Home
Info & FAQ |  Resource services |  Training |  Meetings |  Membership |  Documents |  Whois & Search |  Internet community

You're here:  Home  Mailing Lists sig-policy 
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [sig-policy] Forwarded reply from Gordon Bader

Hi Jeff and Everyone,

That is why I tried to keep this proposal short, simple and direct, which is directly linked to
the RIR's (in this case APNIC's) primary charter. If APNIC (or any RIR) has the ability to
allocate IP space to carriers/ISP, then they have the ability to remove authorization for its use.

The last set of questions and answers proves the point. The only thing that counts is the
ability to produce revenue. Remove the ability to produce revenue and suddenly you have
the carriers/ISP's complete and un-divided attention. You also have the attention of their
law department and any law firm they can hire and that just might work in the communities' favor.

By arguing that the carrier/ISP lost its address space due to routing unallocated IP addresses
is a strong argument that if they comply with the routing policies that apply to everyone, then there
would not be a problem.

In the US, driving a car is not a right. Similarly, a carrier/ISP does not have a right to IP
space, they had to apply for it and it had to be allocated to them. By abusing the allocation,
they can loose the allocation, and with it the ability to produce revenue. The one thing they
understand is loss of their revenue.
Is this simplistic, yes - but has anything else worked so far?

To date the RIRs have operated on a consensus basis. That is wonderful for a positive
environment. However, this positive consensus operating basis is being used against the
community by the people who have allocated to themselves something that does not belong
to them. They have done this because no entity is able to do anything negative to them.
Therefor, the community must somehow adopt a position that will do something negative
to these scofflaws either directly or indirectly. Since they did not come to the RIRs or
anyone for their IP address space assignment - they are vulnerable in the IP space.
They just arranged for routing by some non policy means. Thus, essentially the only recourse
the RIRs have is by having the entity performing the routing to dark space, stop routing.

You can try to fine the carriers/ISP - what $1 a day, $1,000 a day, a $1,000,000 a day
so that the larger companies will actually feel some pain. They will never pay because the
RIRs were never setup to fine anyone. Thus the only real recourse is to remove what you
(the RIRs) initially granted - IP space.

Thanks,
Gordon

Jeff Williams wrote:

Gordon and all,

The short answer is: surely there is. And several ideas have been floated
that were not in a proposal format that MAY garner stakeholder/user
support. However they may NOT garner APNIC questionably legitimate
leadership. Hence the crux of RIR's policy development dilemma..

GB wrote:


Hi Jeff,

So is there a more effective proposal that can be crafted and
presented that would garner sufficient
support to be adopted?

Thanks,
Gordon

Jeff Williams wrote:


GB, Joe and all,

GB wrote:




Hi Jeff,

Thank you very much for publishing the additional information. The
3 week period I referred to was just that one example that I had at hand
and did not want to cite anything longer because I did not have a
concrete example, just in case I was asked to provide additional
documentation. I also wanted to give the carriers the "benefit of
doubt" that they try to do a reasonable job at table maintenance.



First off, you welcome GB. Secondly, the carriers have been given
the benefit of the doubt far to long and have yet to belly up to the bar
for various reasons that may be very good ones to each carrier itself
form a business and investor return standpoint. However, regulation
that is thoughtful, enforceable and in as well as by the public interest
is, and has been needed for a number of years now.




In all honesty, I submitted the proposal to generate some thought
within the community on the problem and possible solutions. I do
realize that the various local legalities (local to the ISPs and various
carriers) as well as the previously cited international and trade
concerns create a very difficult landscape for such a proposal as this
to have any traction at all, especially with the drastic economic impact
that it carries. Coupling the various legalities, trade, economic
realities together, you wind up with a nearly insurmountable problem,
especially for a proposal that is rather simple and drastic in nature.



No problem IMHO is insurmountable IF any and all interested parties
are truly willing to first recognize the problem, can adequately identify
the aspects of the problem, and are willing to address the problem
in earnest.







Given all of this, I ask the community, how else other than
sanctions that carry drastic economic consequences will such large
carriers (as well as smaller ISPs) essentially be forced to police
themselves?



Our members answer is that there at this juncture and after all these
years, none. The more relevant question might be: How can enforceable
global policies/regulations be developed that meet the current and perhaps
changing over time, needs of all of the interested and effected parties?




Has the servicing of dark space become a "cost of doing
business", and if so, what happens when it's growth creates a situation
that cannot be ignored?



No and to address such a problem is one that needs government and
the private sector regulated policy solutions that are again enforceable and
may carry serious financial or other penalties if violated or reported and
found in a short period for review, also enforced to the letter if so provided
for in such determined policies/regulations.




Does the community just legitimize the practice
and go forward?



Of course not! It would be unlikely presently to determine if the
community, depending on how one defines "The Community", if
such a practice has or is being legitimized...




SPAM traffic now consumes well over 60% of email
traffic. Will we have a "controlled" area of IP space that co-exists at
some level with "uncontrolled" space - an extension of what we have
now?



Controlling IP space is not the problem, but controlling how IP
space is utilized is...




What happens when a new allocation is made that takes away
someone's use of dark space that they have been "using" for a
substantial period of time. Will they claim legal ownership under
something similar to real estate's "Adverse Possession"?



Legal ownership is being claimed for Domain names now, even
TLD's are now owned due to ICANN's error in judgment. How
far away are we from ownership of IP addresses?




I would also like to ask something that I touched on before. Has
APNIC considered a test in that they would officially request that XYZ
(i.e., ATT, MSN, MCI, AOL, etc.) to return it's property (the
unallocated IP address space). Essentially, by routing a dark space
address, the service in question, is denying APNIC the control of it's
property that it needs back under it's control for authorized legal
allocation. A cease and desist order for lack of a better description.
It might be an interesting attempt. I would think that say ATT for
example, would have a difficult time denying APNIC's request to return
(stop routing a dark space address), when its own IP address allocation
has been derived from an RIR.



Why would they?




What recourse would APNIC have if such a
request were either ignored or refused outright?



Currently APNIC could suggest other of it's "Customers"
block all of ATT's IP's. Pretty weak...




With regards,
Gordon

Jeff Williams wrote:




GB and all,

ATT has been routing and utilizing dark address space for at least 3 years
that I can document, not mearly 3 weeks. Worldcom/con/MCI has been
doing so for longer than 4 years that I can document. AOL has been doing so
for longer than 6 years that I can document. And MSN has been doing so
for a little more than 4 years that I know of.

Hence I cannot in good faith, agree with your comment or opinion that
"Most if not all carriers, I believe attempt to perform a good job keeping
their tables current and clean."

I believe that Dr Batista, myself and others on other verious forums going
back at least 4 years have pointed this out to Worldcom/con/MCI as well
as ATT before.

GB wrote:






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@ix.netcom.com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827