Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad on IPv4

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 04:13:17 -0400 (EDT)

I have the following in an article to be published this week

"David Conrad recently reminded legal participant of telecom conferences
that Ipv4 address space remains yours even if you don't pay the registry
fees.  Conrad a registry insider at ARIN admitted people don't have to
return address space if they don't pay their fees."

Can anyone tell me why this is the case?

regards
joe baptista

--
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:34:19 -0400

> Can anyone tell me why this is the case?

Well... I go down to the local rental store, and if I rent a post hole
digger or a chain saw or similar, I need to return it before the next
people can use it.

If I forget to return the stuff I rented from Rent-An-Integer (aka ARIN),
they don't need to get my integers back before they can give them out again
to somebody who's not a deadbeat.

Of course, at that point, you basically have RFC1918-style space with
a nonstandard prefix, and are quite likely to be hassled by the current
renter of that series of integers if you persist in using them on the
open Internet.

Remember - you're not paying for address space.  You're paying for a guarantee
that you're the only user of that address space.  If you don't understand the
distinction, you might want to stash that article and re-write it once you do.
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:15:24 -0400 (EDT)

well what i've heard is that it what we in business call the old screw up.
they forgot the law while they were handing out address space.

cerf explained it very well.  they are powerless to do anything.  i can
see a IPv4 union of users coming together.  his exact words were

"The problem with trying to reclaim (re-possess) IP address space is
enforcement. One has to find a way to stop someone from "advertising" the
assigned address space in the global routing tables before one can
effectively re-use the address space. Unless the party cooperates by
ceasing to advertise the space, assigning it to another party who
advertises this address space will cause inconsistent routing to one or
the other of the advertising networks."

I can see alot of opportunities here if push comes to shove.  Incidentally
rfc 1918 is irrelevant to it - those are internal border addresses - non
public "Address Allocation for Private Internets".  Unless I'm missing
something it's the public address network.

Cheers
Joe Baptista

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:15:56 -0400

Joe Baptista wrote:

>Incidentally
Vladis's point was that using addresses not assigned to you on the 
public network was like using RFC-1918 addresses on the public network.

-- 
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                     |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com                   |
|Centiv            |My opinions are my own.                    |
|==============================================================|
|"Where's your sense of adventure?" "In front of a roaring fire|
|with a cup of cocoa."                                         |
\==============================================================/

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:51:33 -0500

Thus spake "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> the other of the advertising networks."

Revoking the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation for the addresses certainly makes them less
functional.  There's nothing stopping anyone from advertising any address space
they want today anyways.  Advertising "revoked" address space is just a special
case.

S

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:17:34 -0400

> public network was like using RFC-1918 addresses on the public network.

that, and using RFC 1918 addresses on networks that aren't disconnected
from the Internet destroys address uniqueness in the Internet and 
breaks applications.