[187987] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: About inetnum "ownership"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonas Bjork)
Wed Mar 2 03:23:15 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jonas Bjork <mr.jonas.bjork@me.com>
In-reply-to: <1456899158.11868.58.camel@biplane.com.au>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 08:46:43 +0100
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi,
shouldn't the same logic of ownership of DNS domain names apply to inetnum a=
ddress space?
Best regards,
Jonas
Sent from my iPad
> On 02 Mar 2016, at 07:12, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
>=20
>> On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 00:44 -0500, William Herrin wrote:
>> Do I have the legal right to exclude others from announcing my block
>> of IP addresses to the public Internet routing tables? It's not well
>> tested in court but the odds are exceptionally strong that I do.
>=20
> If I own some property - say a field - the location of that field is
> with certain rare exceptions public information. I as the owner cannot
> enforce a requirement on you to NOT tell people where my field is. I
> can't demand that you NOT build roads past it, or that you NOT put up
> signs saying how to get to my field, or even that you NOT tell people
> who owns the field. I have the right to exclusive use of the property,
> but I have no rights to information about the property, nor any
> property rights outside the boundary of the property.
>=20
> Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be
> a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a
> different matter.
>=20
> Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any
> jurisdiction?
>=20
>> Indeed, the whole point of registration is to facilitate
>> determination
>> of -who- has the exclusive right over -which- blocks of addresses.
>=20
> The problem is what rights we are talking about. I would say that
> practically speaking the only real right here is the right to configure
> an address on an interface. But anyone else can send packets to an
> address, or advertise to others the direction of travel towards that
> network. Malicious activity excluded of course - DoS attacks and so on,
> but I think the issues there are different. Also, contractually
> regulated relationships are different - if I connect something up to
> ISPX and have a contract with ISPX to NOT advertise the route to me,
> then ISPX is constrained.
>=20
> Regards, K.
>=20
> --=20
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
> http://twitter.com/kauer389
>=20
> GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
> Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
>=20
>=20
>=20
