IPv4 Exhaustion...

How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
several customers that don't require public address space that could be
moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal

On a related note, what's the best way to handle RIAA/MPAA requests for
end-users that intentionally run "open" APs, especially when the notices
don't show up for days or weeks (by which time the offender, a hotel guest,
has long since moved on)?

David Smith

Answer 1. Log the translations so you can match the source/destination
ports and timestamp back to the real customer.

Answer 2. "We were unable to locate the offending material / identify
the offending customer using the information you provided. We have
narrowed it to one of <count> customers and preserved the relevant
logs. Please contact us at 123-456-7890 and reference ticket 5432 for
further assistance."

"The IP address you specified is a multiuser access point. If you let
us know the IP address on your end, we can watch for it inside our
network for the next 24 hours and determine which customer is talking
to it. We're unable to historically determine which customers
interacted with your IP address."

"Your subpoena is overly broad. Go back and specify port number and
timestamp. And read draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02, section

RIAA should be IPv6 activists.


It might be helpful to review the requirements for DMCA Safe Harbor for
conduit communication providers, specifically section 512(a). It's been my
experience that some networks (.edu's in particular) have voluntarily
expanded their actions in response to DMCA complaints, and will sometimes
falsely attribute these actions to DMCA requirements.

If I recall correctly, the primary responsibilities for a conduit provider
are limited to terminating repeat offenders, and informing subscribers of
this policy. The DMCA doesn't explicitly define what a repeat offender is,
nor does it explicitly mandate specific logging measures.

If a provider makes best-effort attempts to correlate complaints to
subscribers in order to track repeat offenders, I'm not sure there is a
liability problem here.


What's crazy is:

  a) How each org/company seems to be handling these notices

  b) How they seem to be filtering down to operations people to sort

Seems like an opportunity for some lawyers to form a membership
association. Agree to some reasonable policy, send them your RIAA (et
al, because this kind of thing is growing like kudzu) takedowns,
they'll respond or tell you what you should do to satisfy (if

This would let that org develop some leverage with RIAA et al, "if we
don't hang together we will surely hang separately", RIAA is taking
advantage of this, their lawyers know full well how a+b above can be

I sat in an "intellectual property constituency" meeting at ICANN
which was basically me, and 100+ lawyers.

Their main topic was takedowns, and how horrible it was that ISPs et
al don't just reformat all their disks on receipt of a lawyer letter
on nice letterhead, the bastards (i.e., us) start demanding court
orders etc, outrageous! expensive! burdensome!

I told some quick anecdotes about phony takedown demands (e.g.,
painful divorce or business partner fights) and my
inability/reluctance to accurately judge these things beyond the most

I can't say they weren't receptive, it was a little bit of a "WAKE UP
they understood, and the potential liability aspects for an ISP.

Anyhow my take is that takedowns are a growth industry.

Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3 months back would be impossible to answer. (that would require L2 tracking that an ISP simply cannot do.)

Actually, what they'd probably really like is HIP (host identity payload).

Mike, I don't think it went anywhere though