Re: IPv4

On 3-aug-2007, at 13:32, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> I don't see a cause of action a third party could bring here.
Agree. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that random IP users have  
standing for suing other random IP users.
> In the past digital has claimed to have used a very large fraction  
> of their allocation. Its just behind a firewall.
They used to run a big FTP server at 16.1 for a long time. There are  
several levels of use, ranging from public servers to private,  
through not-very-visible routed use to unrouted internal. Obviously  
with any type of use, it's going to be painful to move away from that  
to free up the space, but the question is how much internet-wide pain  
we're willing to accept to avoid some private pain for organizations  
having those very large address blocks.
However, by the time that the pain level is high enough that we get  
around to answering that, it's going to be too late to do much about  
it. If we really only have 3.5 years left, it's pretty much too late  
to do anything with IPv4. And if our address use keeps going up (195  
million addresses used in the past 12 months, doesn't even include  
corrections for ARIN book keeping strangeness), we'll be burning  
through 400 million addresses or so in 2010, so reclaiming ALL ~ 40  
legacy class As means little more than a year extra time. We can just  
as easily create that extra year by taking action NOW instead of next  
year.
> Rather than lay out ten million plus on a lawsuit that is unlikely  
> to achieve the desired result the isp is going to pay hp.
Ok, so money changes hands, and then what? ARIN obviously can't  
rubberstamp the title transfer after this week's public declaration  
against address trading, so the ISP in question will have to get the  
rest of the world to route it despite angry looks (or worse?) from  
ARIN. And forget about routing certificates, which should be deployed  
to some degree by then.
> Do not expect the courts to be as willing to step into this  
> situation and decide it the way you think it should be decided. US  
> judges are political appointments. Most are ideologically committed  
> to free market arguments.
I don't think many of them are willing to make a ruling that  
effectively breaks the internet.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf