[20171] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [YA] Fwd: Class B Purchase
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Geoff Huston)
Tue Oct 6 18:15:56 1998
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 07:56:17 +1000
To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
From: Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>
Cc: Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>, "David R. Conrad" <David_Conrad@isc.org>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <19981006061708.A29853@Mcs.Net>
At 06:17 AM 10/6/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>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 don't think "the courts will resolve this mess" is a reasonable or
likely response given the larger international context in which this
address allocation resides.
As a counter point, I'm equally certain that the "registries" will have
a difficult time figuring out _which_ court has jurisdiction in any given
dispute, given that the planet seems to be stuffed to the brim of both
courts and lawyers :-)
The problem is that address prefixes _are_ being traded, and as the registry
policies do not recognize this activity, the task for an ISP to validate
a client's request to route an arbitrary address prefix is largely one of
uninformed guesswork. I'm sure most ISPs would see the potential for
liability in such a situation. But I do not see the courts as the
means of resolving this situation. Yes we need a more realistic registry role
where the registry role is more akin to that of a title registration
office, but the courts will not provide us the wherewithal to get to
that point with a set of processes and tools which support an accurate
routing system where each routing entry can be authenticated to its
current "owner".
You can call me a faithless heathen if you want, but I just don't see
why the legal process should have any deeper insight into solving this
problem than the rest of us weenies!
Geoff
