[168630] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Updated ARIN allocation information
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 1 00:40:56 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140201010329.GA8654@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:27:16 -0800
To: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog@panix.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 31, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog@panix.com> =
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:10:51AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>>> A /8 slot costs as much as a /28 slot to hold process etc. A =
routing
>>> slot is a routing slot. The *only* reason this isn't a legal =
problems
>>> at the moment is people can still get /24s. The moment /24's aren't
>>> readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
>>> filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to =
lawsuits.
>>=20
>> On what basis? How do you have the right to force me to carry your =
route on
>> my network? Especially in light of the recent strike-down of the net =
neutrality
>> rules?
>>=20
>>> Now as this range is allocated for transition to IPv6 a defence for
>>> edge networks may be "we can reach all their services over IPv6"
>>> but that doesn't work for transit providers. Eyeball networks would
>>> need to ensure that all their customers had access to IPv6 and even
>>> that may not be enough.
>>=20
>> Please point to the law which requires a transit provider to provide =
transit
>> to every tiny corner of every internet.=20
>=20
> Speaking only with respect to the US:
>=20
> I am aware of no such law.
>=20
> However, I am aware of a law that makes it unlawful for a bunch of
> large providers who already have large blocks of space to collude to
> prevent new entrants into the market by refusing to carry their =
routes.
>=20
Sure=85 The Sherman Anti-Trust act. However, in order to bring a =
successful
action under that act, one must prove that they colluded on the =
decision, rather
than simply arriving at that decision independently. Since the current =
status quo
is not carrying longer routes in general, it would be pretty hard to =
show that they
colluded to avoid changing their policy.
> If the guy with the /28 he can't route alleges that that's what's
> happening, there are lots of arguments on the other side the ISPs with
> the filters could make. They've been filtering at /24 for a lot =
longer
> than it started to seriosuly harm new entrants into the market ...
> there was never any formal agreement to filter at /24; it just =
happened
> (but everyone ended up filtering at /24 ... that wasn't just
> coincidence) ... there are real technical reasons for limiting FIB
> size ... and so on. I don't know who would win the anti-trust =
lawsuit,
> but I wouldn't consider it a slam dunk for the ISPs doing the
> filtering.
In the current regulatory environment with the current US courts, I=92d =
say it=92s
pretty close to a slam dunk. However, IANAL and YMMV definitely applies =
here.
As a practical matter, it=92s also awfully expensive for the little guy =
to bring enough
lawyers to bear on one of the large providers to stand a chance of not =
being
simply buried in procedural paperwork and discovery. The little guy =
would have
to have pretty strong backing or pretty deep pockets to survive the =
process.
> I don't expect there to actually be such a lawsuit. Among other
> things, buying a /24 will likely be cheaper than litigating this, so
> the only way it gets to trial is an organization litigating on
> principle. And, as I said, I'm not convinced the filtering providers
> lose if there is one. But anytime the big guys collectively have a
> policy that keeps out the new entrants, there's anti-trust exposure.
Only if you can prove collusion. For civil matters, it=92s just by =
preponderance of
the evidence, but if the DoJ or some District Attorney or Attorney =
General decides
to take the matter up as a criminal case, then the burden shifts to =
beyond a
reasonable doubt.
As much as I wish there were a way to require the big guys to be nice to =
the
little guys, the reality is that the precedent such a case would set =
(being able
to require a network to carry arbitrary traffic whether or not doing so =
is in that
networks own best interest and regardless of the cost/benefit ratio, =
etc.) is
a very dangerous precedent. Once that one is on the books, imagine how =
the
big guys could use it to bankrupt the little guys=85
The other option, of course, is that the big guys simply start charging =
the registered
prefix holder for every route they accept. Then, they are free to offer =
discounts up
to 100% to any providers they choose to offer such discounts to, but the =
little guys are
still shafted.
Bottom line, the big guys have enough resources and know how to play the
regulatory and litigation games well enough that I just don=92t see the =
little guy
achieving anything but a pyrrhic victory at best.
Owen
