[YA] Class B Purchase

:: Karl Denninger writes ::

Oh, I'm quite certain that the "registries" will recognize a court order,
which, if they refuse to recognize a reassignment, is precisely what they
*should* be forced to recognize.

Of course. If a class B is sold, and ARIN is ordered by federal court
to register it to the buyer, I'm confident that they will.

I'm also confident that it would be heavily discussed on lists such as
this one.

I think it's at least possible that some major providers would refuse
to accept that route, in spite of the fact that ARIN's database would
claim that it's valid. Since ARIN has no enforcement power -- networks
can accept or reject whatever routes they like -- what then? Does the
buyer then get a court order ordering every provider to accept the
route? Even if you can get such an order (and I'd be skeptical), it
won't guarantee you reachability from outside the USA.

          - Brett (brettf@netcom.com)

Collusive behavior is a big, big problem Brett. I'd love to see exactly
this kind of thing take place - it would be hilarious to see some of those
providers try to defend THAT.

Collusive behavior is a big, big problem Brett. I'd love to see exactly
this kind of thing take place - it would be hilarious to see some of those
providers try to defend THAT.

Is it then collusive behavior for network providers to band together and
use the RBL to deny network and/or mail traffic?

Same basic principle - a group of network providers who categorically deny
access and through traffic to address space(s) which don't conform to
arbitrary standards of the list-maker.

Not that I disagree with the RBL at all, but I'm curious as to how you
think the two similar issues differ.

They are massively different both in scope and intent. Among other things:

1. "Address registries" levy fees and impose effective monopoly control
  over address space. The RBL does not impose any effective monopoly
  control, it is not a fee-paid-service, and in fact neither is SMTP
  traffic exchange in the norm.

2. You can always go somewhere else to relay (or send) your email if
  you find yourself RBLd. You can't go somewhere else to get address
  space (back to central control again).

3. RBL-free access is not an essential facility. IP address space is.
  This is an incredibly important distinction, in that it triggers all
  kinds of special treatment from the US Government when it comes to
  non-discriminatory access to that facility.

4. Historically speaking, nobody "owns" lists of acceptable SMTP
  relaying conduct (or lack thereof). Historically speaking, people
  and firms *DO* own address space, as documented in RFC2008 (just try
  to revoke Apple's Class A, or MIT's, neither of which meets TODAY's
  "efficient utilization" criteria and see how many seconds it takes
  for the lawsuits to start flying. You're tampering with private
  property rights here, and you have no right to do so)

5. Collusive conduct which is designed to and/or acts to restrain trade
  and limit competition is frequently unlawful in the United States.
  Keeping your speech off my computer is not unlawful - in fact, it is
  my private property right to do so. However, were I to *COLLUDE
  WITH OTHERS* to put you out of business (or increase your cost
  of doing business) by refusing to accept your traffic, you'd have
  every right to sue my ass off - regardless of whether or not I am
  doing it via SMTP or at the packet level.

That's for openers. The two concepts you mention as being "similar" have,
in fact, almost nothing in common.

:: Karl Denninger writes ::
>
> Oh, I'm quite certain that the "registries" will recognize a court

order,

> which, if they refuse to recognize a reassignment, is precisely what they
> *should* be forced to recognize.

I think it's at least possible that some major providers would refuse
to accept that route, in spite of the fact that ARIN's database would
claim that it's valid. Since ARIN has no enforcement power -- networks
can accept or reject whatever routes they like -- what then? Does the
buyer then get a court order ordering every provider to accept the
route? Even if you can get such an order (and I'd be skeptical), it
won't guarantee you reachability from outside the USA.

Collusive behavior is a big, big problem Brett. I'd love to see exactly
this kind of thing take place - it would be hilarious to see some of those
providers try to defend THAT.

It might be hilarious, but the only winners would be the lawyers.

"Discussed" is too benign a word for what'd happen here.

  Seems to me, however, that everybody "discussing" this issue
  needs to remember that until it actually happens, everything
  we might say here on NANOG is pure conjecture.

I'm confident that they won't but will appeal the decision. In fact, I
rather expect that ARIN would be given the opportunity to dispute the
claim before the federal court makes any ruling. And ARIN does have some
strong legal arguments that would likely win their case. But then, I am
not a lawyer so you'll have to get the legal details elsewhere.