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

[GB <gbader@cox.net>]

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
>
>
>