About inetnum "ownership"

Wed Mar 2 14:05:09 UTC 2016

The numbers (IP addresses) are not the field. The servers are the field.
The numbers are the street addresses of the server. Domain names would be
a nick name for the numbers, like PaddingHouse.com is at 55.51.52.1. The
BGP table is a road map.

That's why it was once called the Super Information Highway, remember?

You can sell street/road maps to the stars, and the stars don't have to
let you in.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any
> jurisdiction?
>
>> Indeed, the whole point of registration is to facilitate
>> determination
>> of -who- has the exclusive right over -which- blocks of addresses.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards, K.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
> http://twitter.com/kauer389
>
> GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
> Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
>
>
>
>