Can a customer take IP's with them?

Thu Jun 24 14:21:56 UTC 2004

On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 06:49, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:48:14 MDT, John Neiberger <John.Neiberger at efirstbank.com>  said:
> 
> > IANAL, but it appears that from a contractual perspective it is clear
> > that ARIN retains all 'ownership' rights to the address space. They
> > subdivide it to those who are willing to contractually agree to their
> > conditions, but the ownership is never transferred. I would think that
> > that is an important distinction to make.
> 
> IANAL either, but I believe that ARIN doesn't claim to own 32-bit integers.
> What they're providing is a *registry service* to keep track of what entities
> are using what ranges of 32-bit integers, to prevent duplication.  There's no
> *requirement* that you use any particular address range, except that by
> community agreement, nobody wants to deal with non-registered addresses.
> 
> If ARIN actually *owned* the address space, we'd not have the perennial
> flame-war regarding 1918-space source addresses on the global net - everybody
> would do a really fast and good job of implementing ingress/egress filtering
> because ARIN could sue you for using their addresses... :)

I think you meant IANA there, not ARIN ;) Indeed nobody will complain if
you setup your own RIR and start handing out addresses, it is a registry
and those work as long as common believe is that they are the central
sources of authority. The same goes for DNS and basically everything
else.

On another, related note:

RFC2544 (C.2.2):
8<--------------------------
   The network addresses 192.18.0.0 through 198.19.255.255 are have been
   assigned to the BMWG by the IANA for this purpose.  This assignment
   was made to minimize the chance of conflict in case a testing device
   were to be accidentally connected to part of the Internet.  The
   specific use of the addresses is detailed below.
-------------------------->8
Thus 192.18.0.0/15 is IANA ?reserved? for the BMWG (btw note also
the "are have been" ;), but in whois.arin.net:

8<--------------------------
OrgName:    Sun Microsystems, Inc
OrgID:      SUN
Address:    4150 Network Circle
City:       Santa Clara
StateProv:  CA
PostalCode: 95054
Country:    US

NetRange:   192.18.0.0 - 192.18.194.255
CIDR:       192.18.0.0/17, 192.18.128.0/18, 192.18.192.0/23,
192.18.194.0/24
NetName:    SUN1
NetHandle:  NET-192-18-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-192-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.SUN.COM
NameServer: NS2.SUN.COM
NameServer: NS7.SUN.COM
NameServer: NS8.SUN.COM
Comment:
RegDate:    1985-09-09
Updated:    2003-10-10
------------------------->8

The RFC is from 1999, according to the above Sun owns and is using that
block a lot longer.... what is correct?
RFC1944 (from 1996) also notes that block.
RFC1062 (from 1988) then again mentions SUN there ;)

Anyone who has some thoughts about this?
Because a /15 is a very nice testrange if you don't want to break
connectivity to existing rfc1918 addresses and of course not to forget
SUN if you like watching pictures of highend servers to name an example
:)

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040624/7c83839f/attachment.sig>