Subject: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:16:59 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>

    > That comment shows how completely out of touch you are with the
    > enterprise operational world. Unfortunately, that is rather common with
    > the ivory-tower vendor folks commenting in this thread.

Having spent the best part of a decade in the commercial world, I could make
some nasty ad hominem comments about how some people tend to focus on the
short term, and their particular interests, but why don't we just move on
past all that?

    > _understand_ why PI is necessary, however much they dislike and/or fear
    > it.

Most (all?) of us understand and accept that multi-homing, vendor
independence, etc are very desirable *capability* goals. However, whether PI
is the right *particular engineering mechanism* to reach those goals remains
questionable.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:40:31 -0500

Thus spake "Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
> is the right *particular engineering mechanism* to reach those goals 

You can question it, of course.  I question it as well.

However, it is the only solution available today that the operational folks 
consider viable.  The IETF promised something different and has yet to 
deliver, so PI was passed and deployed.  If the IETF does eventually deliver 
something viable, the RIRs will consider deprecating PI.

Keep in mind that, for any solution that requires host changes, "deliver" 
includes being implemented and on by default in Windows.  The IPv6 core 
protocol has only recently achieved this after a decade of waiting, and many 
other pieces still aren't available (firewalls, load balancers, consumer CPE 
boxes, management apps, etc).  Those who propose shim6 or similar solutions 
need to expect it'll take another decade after the ink is dry for their 
solutions to be considered viable -- if ever.  Those running networks have 
to do _something_ in the meantime, however, and the fact that what is 
available offends someone's sense of architectural purity is completely 
irrelevant.  See also: NAT.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:40:31 -0500

S

---

From: john heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:59:17 +0000

Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:40:31AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk:
> deliver, so PI was passed and deployed.  If the IETF does eventually 
> deliver something viable, the RIRs will consider deprecating PI.
> 
> protocol has only recently achieved this after a decade of waiting, and 
> many other pieces still aren't available (firewalls, load balancers, 
> consumer CPE boxes, management apps, etc).  Those who propose shim6 or 
> similar solutions need to expect it'll take another decade after the ink is 
> dry for their solutions to be considered viable -- if ever.

echo.  A multi-homing solution that is simple and free of host requirements
is imperitive.  shim6 isn't it, sorry.

significantly higher than for other registries that IANA maintains  
for the IETF.

Even though IANA is currently providing their services with respect  
to registration of  technical parameters for free we should work from  
the assumption that at one time we, the IETF/IAOC, might have to pay  
for the maintenance of the technical parameter registries.

Although IANA is in a unique position that it has an established  
relation with the TLD operators and the number registries for the  
domains under in-addr.arpa, it is not the only party that could offer  
this service. The DLV protocol allows multiple parties to start a DLV  
registry at arbitrary locations in the namespace. In fact, one might  
expect a competitive market of DLV registries. Given that we think  
that there are no strong technical arguments for a unique domain  
under the .arpa domain, we observe that the establishment of a dlv  
domain under .arpa needs further thought with respect to how the IAB/ 
IETF would influence the above mentioned market.

* Relation IANA and IETF.

The relation between IANA and the IETF are covered through an MOU  
[RFC2860]. The guiding document for the establishment of .arpa  
[RFC3172] specifically mentions the delegation of new domains  
under .arpa being done as part  of that MOU.

Section 4.3 is relevant to the issue we want to raise here

>  4.3. Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in addition
>    to the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the  
> assignment
>    of domain names, and the assignment of IP address blocks. These
>    policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU.

The establishment of the DLV registry bootstraps on relations that  
IANA maintains with the TLDs on the basis of the maintenance of a  
space that is specifically outside the scope of the MOU between the  
IETF and IANA. We feel that by stepping over this boundary we would  
also get involved in some of the policy issues regarding the  
"forward" name space.  That there are policy issues with getting the  
root signed is duly known. So if the IETF were to establish this DLV  
registry in .arpa, than that might be seen as an attempt to outrun  
the policy making process. We therefore feel that the IETF should be  
extremely careful in making a request of this sort.

* Conclusion

The IAB, obviously, favors expedient deployment of DNSSEC in the DNS  
root.

In absence of such we understand that mechanisms such as DLV or the  
publication of lists with TLD trust anchors could aid deployment.  
However, the IAB does not support the establishment of a domain  
under .arpa combined with a request from the IETF to IANA to  
establish such a service as that would implicitly be based on the MOU  
between RFC3172. However,
  - if there is IETF wide consensus on a proposal to establish  
a .arpa zone;
  - if such proposal would deal with the 'competition' issues  
mentioned above;
  - if such proposal should contain much more detail on how to  
establish and maintain authentic DLV entries;
  - and if said proposal describes the other requirements for such  
registry such as key management;
then given such IETF consensus the IAB will explore how such registry  
can be established without violating the MOU.

On behalf of the IAB,

--Olaf Kolkman

--Apple-Mail-150--690752368
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
	name=PGP.sig
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

--Apple-Mail-150--690752368--

--===============1556581002==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--===============1556581002==--

---

From: john heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:59:17 +0000

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:28:58 +0200

On 19-sep-2007, at 21:06, Tony Hain wrote:

> It is clear that people on this list have never really run a  
> network as they
> appear to be completely missing the point, but there is no reason  
> to respond
> to each individually...

[why ULA-C is not a problem]

I agree 100%

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:28:58 +0200

I agree 100%

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:28:58 +0200

I agree 100%

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:22:29 +0200

On 19-sep-2007, at 16:40, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

[provider independent addresses]

> However, it is the only solution available today that the  
> operational folks consider viable.  The IETF promised something  
> different and has yet to deliver, so PI was passed and deployed.   
> If the IETF does eventually deliver something viable, the RIRs will  
> consider deprecating PI.

And that would be the same kind of consideration that has gone  
towards "deprecating" the holding of nearly 0.5% of the total IPv4  
address space by a single organization? Despite the fact that we're  
quickly running out of available IPv4 space and the number of  
organizations involved is less than 50, visible efforts have yet to  
materialize. So I doubt anything is going to happen once a few tens  
of thousands of organizations have cast their IPv6 PI addresses in  
stone. Those prefixes will be around for a _long_ time.

> Those who propose shim6 or similar solutions need to expect it'll  
> take another decade after the ink is dry for their solutions to be  
> considered viable

Curious how so many people know exactly that so many transitions will  
take a decade or more, without ANY precedents to base this on.

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:33:26 -0500

Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[email-masked]>
>> However, it is the only solution available today that the  operational 
>> folks consider viable.  The IETF promised something  different and has 
>> yet to deliver, so PI was passed and deployed.   If the IETF does 
>> eventually deliver something viable, the RIRs will  consider deprecating 
>> PI.
>
> And that would be the same kind of consideration that has gone  towards 
> "deprecating" the holding of nearly 0.5% of the total IPv4  address space 
> by a single organization? Despite the fact that
> we're quickly running out of available IPv4 space and the number
> of organizations involved is less than 50, visible efforts have yet
> to materialize.

ARIN's counsel has told ARIN that it is unclear if they have legal standing 
to revoke legacy assignments.  And, for the record, there are over 50,000 of 
them, not less than 50.

Also, projections show that even if we reclaimed _every_ legacy assignment 
(many of which are still in use and even justified under current policy), it 
would only delay exhaustion six months to a year; it is felt that doing so 
is not generally worth the effort and would certainly cost an absurd amount 
in legal fees, and the litigation is likely to last beyond the exhaustion 
date anyways (with no solid guess as to who would win in the end).

> So I doubt anything is going to happen once a few tens of
> thousands of organizations have cast their IPv6 PI addresses in  stone. 
> Those prefixes will be around for a _long_ time.

The situation is different with v6 because all PI assignments are subject to 
a contract that allows ARIN to revoke them at any time with a policy change. 
If a viable alternative emerged, ARIN could stop making new PI assignments, 
deprecate the existing ones, and drop them after a few years' transition 
period.  OTOH, the alternative that appears may be some novel idea that 
allows widespread use of PI without injecting routes into the DFZ, in which 
case it won't be necessary to deprecate it but rather to make it easier to 
get.

>> Those who propose shim6 or similar solutions need to expect it'll  take 
>> another decade after the ink is dry for their solutions to be  considered 
>> viable
>
> Curious how so many people know exactly that so many
> transitions will take a decade or more, without ANY precedents
> to base this on.

Any transition that requires a change to the _host protocol stack_ can be 
expected to take that long, based on how long it took to get core v6 support 
implemented and enabled by default in Windows.  It's still unusable for the 
vast majority of consumers because they're behind CPE NAT devices without 
6to4 support.  Kudos to Apple for being the first to ship a usable v6 CPE 
box; hopefully other vendors will follow within a few years.

S

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:33:26 -0500

S

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:28:56 +0200

On 20-sep-2007, at 18:33, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>> the RIRs will  consider deprecating PI.

>> towards "deprecating" the holding of nearly 0.5% of the total  
>> IPv4  address space by a single organization? Despite the fact that

> ARIN's counsel has told ARIN that it is unclear if they have legal  
> standing to revoke legacy assignments.

First of all, litigation isn't the only way to get something done,  
and second, do don't know that until you try. We did see 46/8 come  
back earlier this year, but unless I'm mistaken, that was the first  
legacy /8 to be returned this century.

> And, for the record, there are over 50,000 of them, not less than 50.

50000 organizations holding nearly 0.5% of the IPv4 space each? I'm  
impressed! With that kind of address compression technology we don't  
need IPv6 after all.

> Also, projections show that even if we reclaimed _every_ legacy  
> assignment (many of which are still in use and even justified under  
> current policy), it would only delay exhaustion six months to a  
> year; it is felt that doing so is not generally worth the effort  
> and would certainly cost an absurd amount in legal fees, and the  
> litigation is likely to last beyond the exhaustion date anyways  
> (with no solid guess as to who would win in the end).

I mostly agree with that, but a few years ago it looked like  
reclaiming, say, half of the legacy /8s would buy us 2 - 5 extra  
years of IPv4 lifetime and there was enough time to do it at that  
point. Same thing for repurposing 240/4, by the way.

>> thousands of organizations have cast their IPv6 PI addresses in   

> The situation is different with v6 because all PI assignments are  
> subject to a contract that allows ARIN to revoke them at any time  
> with a policy change. If a viable alternative emerged, ARIN could  
> stop making new PI assignments, deprecate the existing ones, and  
> drop them after a few years' transition period.

I don't believe that for one second. Maybe the RIRs have contracts  
with all new PI holders, but that doesn't automatically give ARIN the  
authority to reclaim address space after a policy change. I don't  
know of a precedent of any RIR EVER reclaiming ANY address space  
without the cooperation of the holder, despite the holder not  
complying with policies.

As a non-lawyer, I would judge the chances in court for reclaiming  
IPv4 /8s higher than those for reclaiming IPv6 PI space: in the first  
case, it's the benefit the continued operation of the IPv4 internet,  
in the latter case, it's going to look highly arbitrary.

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:10:55 -0500

> First of all, litigation isn't the only way to get something done,  and 
> second, do don't know that until you try.

If you try to revoke someone's /8 or /16, you can bet that they're going to 
sue you.

> We did see 46/8 come back earlier this year, but unless I'm
> mistaken, that was the first legacy /8 to be returned this century.

Return is different than revocation.  ARIN is working on policy changes that 
would encourage/incent voluntary return, as well as community outreach.

>> And, for the record, there are over 50,000 of them, not less than

Clarification: 31,386 in ARIN's region.  I haven't seen stats for the other 
RIRs.

> 50000 organizations holding nearly 0.5% of the IPv4 space each?
> I'm impressed! With that kind of address compression technology
> we don't need IPv6 after all.

I'm sure you're aware that different size assignments were made to different 
organizations.

>> Also, projections show that even if we reclaimed _every_
>> legacy assignment (many of which are still in use and even
>> justified under current policy), it would only delay exhaustion
>> six months to a year; it is felt that doing so is not generally worth
>> the effort and would certainly cost an absurd amount in legal
>> fees, and the litigation is likely to last beyond the exhaustion
> I mostly agree with that, but a few years ago it looked like  reclaiming, 
> say, half of the legacy /8s would buy us 2 - 5 extra  years of IPv4 
> lifetime and there was enough time to do it at that  point.

Even if true, that point is past.  Based on current projections, it is 
unlikely we'd be able to recover _any_ /8s before exhaustion hits due to the 
protracted litigation that would ensue, and even if we did manage to get 
some of them back (which isn't guaranteed, and would cost millions of 
dollars in any case), it wouldn't have a material effect.  We're going to 
run out in a few years no matter what we do, the DFZ is going to explode 
because big ISPs will be getting e.g. hundreds of /20s instead of a single 
/12 for each request, and IPv6 still won't be deployed and usable in any 
meaningful way unless we make more progress in the next two years than we 
have in the last ten.

> Same thing for repurposing 240/4, by the way.

Decade problem.  Come back and discuss that when Windows recognizes that 
block as normal unicast addresses by default.

>> The situation is different with v6 because all PI assignments
>> are subject to a contract that allows ARIN to revoke them at
>> any time with a policy change. If a viable alternative emerged,
>> ARIN could stop making new PI assignments, deprecate the
>> existing ones, and drop them after a few years' transition
>> period.
>
> I don't believe that for one second. Maybe the RIRs have
> contracts with all new PI holders, but that doesn't automatically
> give ARIN the authority to reclaim address space after a policy
> change.

Again, I don't know about all RIRs, but that is _explicitly called out_ in 
ARIN's Registration Services Agreement and AFAIK has been since day one.

That, in fact, is one of the many reasons that the legacy holders do not 
want to join the RIRs: they believe that their addresses can't be revoked 
as-is but they could be if they signed an RSA.

> I don't know of a precedent of any RIR EVER reclaiming ANY
> address space without the cooperation of the holder, despite
> the holder not complying with policies.

ARIN does so today on a regular basis for certain reasons.  There is a 
proposal that would grant them more policy authority to do so in more cases. 
The language enabling such policy is in the RSA.

> As a non-lawyer, I would judge the chances in court for
> reclaiming IPv4 /8s higher than those for reclaiming IPv6 PI
> space: in the first case, it's the benefit the continued operation
> of the IPv4 internet, in the latter case, it's going to look highly
> arbitrary.

I'd suggest you review the comments by ARIN's counsel at the last meeting 
WRT revoking legacy assignments.  It's more complicated than it appears at 
first glance, particularly to someone not used to our legal system.

S

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:10:55 -0500

S

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:47:27 +0200

On 20-sep-2007, at 21:10, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>> First of all, litigation isn't the only way to get something  
>> done,  and second, do don't know that until you try.

> If you try to revoke someone's /8 or /16, you can bet that they're  
> going to sue you.

So? The RIRs and ICANN have deep pockets.

But there are other approaches than simply revoking the address  
space. For instance, setting up a policy that governs who gets to  
keep legacy space that takes into consideration various types of use  
and cost of renumbering makes sense. I'm sure some legacy space is  
used in a way that's fairly reasonable, while other space isn't used  
at all.

Obviously the elephant in the room is the US government that has  
about 5% of all address space, which seems excessive even for legacy  
holders.

> Clarification: 31,386 in ARIN's region.  I haven't seen stats for  
> the other RIRs.

> I'm sure you're aware that different size assignments were made to  
> different organizations.

I was specifically talking about the /8s, where you get a decent bang  
for your reclaiming effort buck. But even that isn't enough anymore  
to bother at this point...

> Even if true, that point is past.  Based on current projections, it  
> is unlikely we'd be able to recover _any_ /8s before exhaustion  
> hits due to the protracted litigation that would ensue, and even if  
> we did manage to get some of them back (which isn't guaranteed, and  
> would cost millions of dollars in any case),

What would that be, $0.25 per address? Big deal.

> IPv6 still won't be deployed and usable in any meaningful way  
> unless we make more progress in the next two years than we have in  
> the last ten.

Progress in various aspects of IPv6 has been slow because it didn't  
need to be faster. I see no solvable issues with IPv6 deployment that  
can't be solved in those 2 years. (No, we still won't have routing  
that will take us to the next century by then, but I suggest we don't  
wait for that.)

> Decade problem.  Come back and discuss that when Windows recognizes  
> that block as normal unicast addresses by default.

If we had done this two years ago it could have been in Vista and in  
an XP update, so the space would have been usable by 2010 or so when  
the older Windows versions and other implementations that don't  
accept these addresses would have had the time to be updated manually  
or replaced.

>> Maybe the RIRs have

> Again, I don't know about all RIRs, but that is _explicitly called  
> out_ in ARIN's Registration Services Agreement

RIRs would still have to show that it's a reasonable thing to do. I'm  
still not a lawyer, but I could easily come up with several arguments  
why I should be able to keep my addresses despite any contracts.

> and AFAIK has been since day one.

I have never heard of a case where an otherwise legitimate  
organization (i.e., not a front for a spam outfit or some such) used  
address space in a way that wasn't abusive or criminal, but didn't  
comply with RIR policies and got those revoked.

> I'd suggest you review the comments by ARIN's counsel at the last  
> meeting WRT revoking legacy assignments.  It's more complicated  
> than it appears at first glance, particularly to someone not used  
> to our legal system.

Isn't everything?

The opinions of one lawyer aren't worth much. As a profession, they  
lose 50% of all their cases, so obviously they must be wrong 50% of  
the time. (Not sure if engineers do better, though.)

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:47:27 -0500

>> If you try to revoke someone's /8 or /16, you can bet that they're  going 
>> to sue you.
>

SCO had "deep" pockets too.  IBM, Novell, etc. had much, much deeper 
pockets.  Do you really think ARIN or ICANN could take on titans such as GE, 
IBM, AT&T, Xerox, HP, Apple, Ford, Halliburton, Eli Lilly, Prudential, and 
Merck?  Even _one_ of them?  ARIN would be squashed like a bug.  Not to 
mention the entire weight of the USG if ARIN tries to mess with _their_ 13 
/8s.

I'm confident that the RIRs' membership would oust any leaders that 
knowingly got them engaged in significant litigation of this sort.

> But there are other approaches than simply revoking the address  space. 
> For instance, setting up a policy that governs who gets to  keep legacy 
> space that takes into consideration various types of
> use and cost of renumbering makes sense. I'm sure some
> legacy space is used in a way that's fairly reasonable, while
> other space isn't used at all.

I have proposed policy for ARIN to head in that direction.  We'll see if it 
passes next month.

> Obviously the elephant in the room is the US government that has  about 5% 
> of all address space, which seems excessive even for
> legacy holders.

We don't know what the US DoD is doing with their addresses since that's 
classified; besides, it was their network to begin with so they do have some 
special priviledges.  The remainder of the USG's address space appears 
reasonable given the number of hosts/employees/etc.

>> I'm sure you're aware that different size assignments were
>> made to different organizations.
>
> I was specifically talking about the /8s, where you get a decent
> bang for your reclaiming effort buck. But even that isn't enough
> anymore to bother at this point...

Those /8s are held by orgs with significant financial resources and are all 
at least partially still in use.  There are thousands of /16s and tens of 
thousands of /24s that can be reclaimed with less effort, time, and cost 
than a single /8 could be, because those smaller blocks aren't in use 
anymore.  There's also a fair amount of squatting on LIR-issued blocks that 
were justified at the time but aren't anymore.

>> unlikely we'd be able to recover _any_ /8s before exhaustion  hits due to 
>> the protracted litigation that would ensue, and even
>> if  we did manage to get some of them back (which isn't
>> guaranteed, and would cost millions of dollars in any case),
>

ARIN gets a _maximum_ of $0.034 per address from the "Xtra Large" ISPs that 
are consuming 80% of ARIN's address space.  In reality, they would get $0 
per address because those ISPs have already topped out on the fees they pay; 
once you pass a /14, you pay _nothing_ for additional addresses.

My pleas to correct the fee schedule's indirect encouragement of massive 
waste have apparently fallen on deaf ears.

>> IPv6 still won't be deployed and usable in any meaningful way  unless we 
>> make more progress in the next two years than we
>> have in the last ten.
>
> Progress in various aspects of IPv6 has been slow because it
> didn't need to be faster. I see no solvable issues with IPv6
> deployment that can't be solved in those 2 years.

The single biggest thing we need now are consumer CPE boxes that understand 
v6 and have 6to4 on by default.  The host issue will take care of itself 
over the next couple of years as non-Vista machines wear out and are 
replaced.

We also need specialty boxes like load balancers, firewalls, NMS, etc. to 
gain v6 support, but that problem is a few orders of magnitude smaller in 
scope and could be solved within 2 years by operators beating on their 
respective sales droids _today_.

> (No, we still won't have routing that will take us to the next century
> by then, but I suggest we don't wait for that.)

No offense to the ISPs, but fixing the DFZ is a relatively small problem _to 
deploy_ compared to upgrading a billion end-user sites.  It's a much harder 
problem to come up with a solution for, though -- and the sort of problem 
the IRTF and IETF seem to be best at.

>> Decade problem.  Come back and discuss that when Windows
>> recognizes that block as normal unicast addresses by default.
>
> If we had done this two years ago it could have been in Vista
> and in an XP update, so the space would have been usable by
> 2010 or so when the older Windows versions and other
> implementations that don't accept these addresses would have
> had the time to be updated manually or replaced.

v6 _could_ have been in NT4, Win98, WinMe, Win2k, WinXP, or Win2k3.  It 
wasn't; it was first implemented and on by default in Vista.  Until I see 
evidence to the contrary, I will assert that any fundamental change to host 
TCP/IP stacks will take a decade to see in Windows, because that's the 
example we have to work with.

>>> Maybe the RIRs have contracts with all new PI holders, but that
>>> doesn't automatically give ARIN the authority to reclaim
>>> address space after a policy change.
>
>> Again, I don't know about all RIRs, but that is _explicitly called  out_ 
>> in ARIN's Registration Services Agreement
>
> still not a lawyer, but I could easily come up with several arguments  why 
> I should be able to keep my addresses despite any contracts.

ARIN's counsel -- who is a lawyer -- has not stated that it would be a 
problem for non-legacy space.  Since he's discussed at length the problems 
with trying to revoke legacy space, and he's responsible for the language in 
the RSA that says ARIN can revoke any non-legacy number resource that 
doesn't meet current policy, that implies he doesn't see a significant 
problem with revoking non-legacy space.

Either way, we will have an official statement before the meeting next 
month, so laymen arguing the point now is a waste of bits.

> I have never heard of a case where an otherwise legitimate  organization 
> (i.e., not a front for a spam outfit or some such) used  address space in 
> a way that wasn't abusive or criminal, but didn't  comply with RIR 
> policies and got those revoked.

So far, ARIN has only been revoking blocks that were originally obtained by 
fraud.  It is believed that most of that fraud has been committed by 
spammers; AFAIK there are no official stats on what percentage isn't, 
though.

>> I'd suggest you review the comments by ARIN's counsel at the
>> last meeting WRT revoking legacy assignments.  It's more
>> complicated than it appears at first glance, particularly to
>> someone not used to our legal system.
>
> Isn't everything?
>
> The opinions of one lawyer aren't worth much. As a profession,
> they lose 50% of all their cases, so obviously they must be
> wrong 50% of the time. (Not sure if engineers do better, though.)

Lawyers are paid to argue cases their clients tell them to, regardless of 
whether they think they're going to win or lose -- or right or wrong.  Do 
you really think SCO's lawyers thought they were going to win against IBM 
and Novell, or do you think they were laughing at their client while they 
collected massive legal fees?  Lots of lawsuits are initiated _knowing_ the 
plaintiff will lose just so they can bleed the defendant dry; in many cases, 
the plaintiff (or prosecutor) prevails even though they're clearly wrong 
simply because the defendant can't afford to fight them.

S

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:40:50 +0200

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> pockets.  Do you really think ARIN or ICANN could take on titans such 
> as GE, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, HP, Apple, Ford, Halliburton, Eli Lilly, 
> Prudential, and Merck?  Even _one_ of them?  ARIN would be squashed 
> like a bug.  Not to mention the entire weight of the USG if ARIN tries 
> to mess with _their_ 13 /8s.
>

I would largely agree with what you wrote, but put it another way: deep 
pockets are an incentive and not a deterrent.  Someone who has no money 
is said to be judgment proof (heh - sort of like SCO right now ;-).

Eliot

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:39:49 -0400

> to mess with _their_ 13 /8s. 

All of which is moot.  The amount of money it would cost to litigate
this is irrelevant, because there's no way that taking this to courts
could result in any relief for the Internet before IPv4 space is exhausted.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:39:49 -0400