Updated ARIN allocation information

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Feb 1 05:27:16 UTC 2014


On Jan 31, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog at panix.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:10:51AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Please point to the law which requires a transit provider to provide transit
>> to every tiny corner of every internet. 
> 
> Speaking only with respect to the US:
> 
> I am aware of no such law.
> 
> 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.
> 

Sure… 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’d say it’s
pretty close to a slam dunk. However, IANAL and YMMV definitely applies here.

As a practical matter, it’s 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’s 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…

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’t see the little guy
achieving anything but a pyrrhic victory at best.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list