No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone
moving to a new apartment in a different part of town, and asking the
court to force the owner of the old house to reassign the old street
address to him.
--Johnny
Can we stop the analogies before they begin.
This is not the PSTN, comparing it to the PSTN appears to be where the court is
going wrong. This is the Internet.
It is internationally accepted policy that IP space is issued under a kind of
license that does not give ownership or transferability. It is also part of the
fundemental operation of the Internet that address space remains aggregated and
that customers borrow space from the provider and if they move they get given
new address space by the new provider. This is agreed by IANA, the RIRs, the
ISPs.
Steve
Johnny Eriksson wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue ("Can I take my cell
number with me?"), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose
these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing
table efficiency.No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone
moving to a new apartment in a different part of town, and asking the
court to force the owner of the old house to reassign the old street
address to him.
[ hey johnny! long time no see. will you be at nordnog?
if so, i will press even harder to go.
or, if they wish to keep the phone analogy, it needs to be
made clear to the relevant court that the phone number is
analogous to the domain name, and the ip space is analogous
to the actual coding in the switches.
the question would seem to be one of who/how best to educate
the court. their issuing a tro when they are not sure makes
some sense.
randy
Since all NSP's, ISP's, ALEC's, BLEC's and CLEC's
adhere to this accepted behavior and there are more
than 100 I blieve the court would be on the side of
the plaintiff under the 3rd amendment of the
constitution.
It is my understanding that doing otherwise will cause
an administrative nightmare and harm to the standard
numbering system across vast segments of the industry
and would create greater security risks than at
present. It would cause enconomic harm to software
writen specifically towards the current system and
force redistribution of software and or fixes that
could be disruptive for months on end.
Worse case scenario. I think this is a bad precedent,
and poor judgement on the part of the defendent ISP,
for the small number block they have. The long term
potential harm could result in small ISP's not being
able to get number blocks thus making it more
difficult
for small companies to gain better backbone access,
from their Tier 1 host counterparts and could trigger
a potentional shakeout in the industry.
Have A nice day...
-Henry
--- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
wrote:
Worse case scenario. I think this is a bad precedent,
and poor judgement on the part of the defendent ISP,
for the small number block they have. The long term
potential harm could result in small ISP's not being
able to get number blocks thus making it more
difficult for small companies to gain better backbone
access, from their Tier 1 host counterparts and could
trigger a potentional shakeout in the industry.
the current social environment encourages self-interest
over responsibility. as i learned when doing the verio
m&a of 60+ isps, "think locally, act globally" is the
motto of the small to medium isp. as the market
continues to 'mature' (think aerospace in the late
'60s) the desperation of the small and the greed of the
large will not lessen the pressures toward social
irresponsibility.
randy