Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court Says Customers May Take IPs Away From ISP

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the snatch-and-grab dept.

The Internet 802

Jeremy Kister writes "According to a post on the North American Network Operators Group mailing-list, The State of New Jersey has issued a temporary restraining order, allowing a former customer of Net Access Corporation (NAC) to take non-portable IP Address space (issued from ARIN), away from NAC." The post argues: "This is a matter is of great importance to the entire Internet community. This type of precedent is very dangerous. If this ruling is upheld it has the potential to disrupt routing throughout the Internet, and change practices of business for any Internet Service Provider."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cool! (5, Funny)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559896)

Now I can be banned from Slashdot wherever I go!

Re:Cool! (0, Offtopic)

Zonekeeper (458060) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559977)

Oh, c'mon! How is the parent offtopic?? Plus, it's funny!!

Re:Cool! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560099)

looks like the offtopic modder still had a point left for you... ;)

Re:Cool! (1, Interesting)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560049)

Now I can be banned from Slashdot wherever I go!

Well my home connection is banned from Slashdot through no fault of mine (as is some other people I know across the city who are with the same ISP as me), forcing me to post comments from work. And the Slashdot banning system doesnt seem to have specific provisions from unbanning select users with good karma from a vast swath of IP blocks...

So since Slashdot seems to have banned my whole ISP, maybe soon I'll be able to find another IP address so I can post on Slashdot on evenings and weekends?

Re:Cool! (5, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560127)

Yep!

i find it funny when im banned... but can still use my mod points...

sucks that so many people come through the same gateway. someone in this office must belong to the GNAA..... i have my suspicions....

Hi (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9559899)

What is this slashdot all about?

It just goes to show you... (1, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559901)

Judges are ignorant.

Re:It just goes to show you... (2, Interesting)

malfunct (120790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560096)

In some ways I'm not sure how this is different on the surface from cell phone number portability.

One reason it is different is that the common names (domain names) are portable. Another may be infrastructure though I think that phone numbers were not designed to be easily switchable between phone companies so as far as that argument goes it might be a wash.

In the end I don't think there is as compelling an argument for ip porability as there was for phone number portability since the IP is not exactly your identity on line whereas your phone number is very definitely your phone identity.

they should get a clue (4, Insightful)

CBravo (35450) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559903)

This is like taking your home address with you, when you move.

"But I want to live on 115 Baker Street". How can a judge get that dumb.

Re:they should get a clue (3, Insightful)

mrwonton (456172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559946)

Exactly. Its not like changing addresses is impossible. With home addresses, you have mail forwarding, and with IP addresses, you have DNS.

Re:they should get a clue (4, Insightful)

crow (16139) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559951)

Or even more like taking your zip code with you when you move.

Re:they should get a clue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560036)

Or even more like taking your zip code with you when you move.

Hilarious but true!

Re:they should get a clue (2, Funny)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560001)

221b Baker Street would be cooler.

IP and phone numbers (5, Funny)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560046)

It isn't really that crazy.

IP addresses are like phone numbers. Except on the other end, there can be anything. In fact the Internet used to run by dialing the exact computer you wanted to talk to didn't it? Or was that pre-Internet? I am too young to remember :-)

I say we hope he is a bit slow, and let him keep 1 class B and on class D address, two for the price of one.

May I recommend 192.168.*.* and 127.0.0.1

He can have them! :-)

Re:they should get a clue (1)

ahaning (108463) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560053)

Or your phone number!!! HAHAHA!!!

Er... Waitaminute... Wasn't there a big hullabaloo a while back about people not being able to take their cell phone numbers with them when they changed carriers? And now we can.

Wouldn't this look the same to the general public?

Even I don't really know what kind of difficulties arise when using cell number portability as compared to moving an IP address from one company to another, and here I am!

Re:they should get a clue (1, Interesting)

Rob Carr (780861) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560055)

This is like taking your home address with you, when you move.

1. How long before the lawsuit demanding that you keep your physical home address?

2. Am I just cynical, or will this lawsuit succeed?

2. When a famous physicist said "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are" I don't think this is what he had in mind.

Re:they should get a clue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560094)

Maybe he thought it was more like phone numbers. Judges aren't dumb. They are often misinformed. Some times one side fills the judge's head with BS and the other side isn't good enough to explain it. That's what appeals are for.

Temporary restraining orders aren't exactly new laws. I haven't seen a single reason why a temporary order is a problem.

Re:they should get a clue (1, Insightful)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560107)

" This is like taking your home address with you, when you move."

No, it's like taking your cell-phone number with you when you change carriers.

I've often said they should switch to IPV6 and everyone should get a BLOCK of static IP addresses based on geographic location. The problem is the ISPs want to own your IP address and they use the shortage in IPV4 to retain control.

Re:they should get a clue (3, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560110)

This reminds me of the most recent National Public Radio April Fools' Joke: they claimed, very convincingly, that the USPS is working on portable zip codes. People think there's a prestige about 90210, for example. It's almost a brand, by itself. So when they move away, they want to take that with them. The gag was done so cleanly that there were quite a few people fooled.

Are they STUPID?!?! (-1, Flamebait)

Phlatline_ATL (174344) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559907)

This is not WLNP! IP's are NOT portable and should not be interchanged like phone numbers. Oh the hell this would unleash.

BTW FIRSTPOST!

Re:Are they STUPID?!?! (3, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560106)

IP's are NOT portable and should not be interchanged like phone numbers.
Actually, IPs are portable, just like phone numbers are. [But read on]
Oh the hell this would unleash.
It used to be that you took your IP addresses with you wherever you went, even a class C, and your ISP would make it work.

However, this became a big problem as the Internet grew and grew, and the BGP tables grew and grew, so finally companies stopped doing this, and now IP ranges are considered to be not portable unless they're a certain size. `CIDRize or die' was the saying ... and people chose not to die.

The court needs a clue though. As does the customer who asked for the TRO -- they'll find that many (most?) ISPs will not route to their IP range at their new ISP, in spite of what the court said. I guess their old ISP could set up a VPN for them, but I'm guessing they won't.

BTW FIRSTPOST!
Not.

Ouch... Keep your IP? (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559908)

Unlike the whole "keep your cell-phone number" jiberjoo, this is unneeded and will do nothing but break the internet, will it not?

Isn't the whole DNS system set up to avoid the need to keep your numeric address? I mean, it's irrelevant if it only takes 5 minutes for my new IP to propogate.

Oh well, I hope this breaks the internet. I'm sick of the internet.

Re:Ouch... Keep your IP? (-1, Flamebait)

Erwos (553607) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559987)

"Unlike the whole "keep your cell-phone number" jiberjoo, this is unneeded..."

How is "keep your phone number" any more needed than this?

I mean, you go tell people who need to get in contact with you what your new phone number is, and update your online info. It's not that hard!

-Erwos

Re:Ouch... Keep your IP? (1)

v_1matst (166486) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560059)

"It's not that hard!"

In more ways than I care to explain to you... Yes, it is.

I'm not the only person who feels this way either.

Re:Ouch... Keep your IP? (1)

B'Trey (111263) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560108)

When someone goes to call me, they dial my specific phone number. If that changes, everyone who wants to get in touch with me has to memorize the new number.

How many people use an IP to send an email or access a web site or whatever other service he's using the IP for? You use a URL. And he CAN take that URL with him. All he has to do is update the authoritative DNS server for the URL with the new IP address.

Re:Ouch... Keep your IP? (5, Funny)

freeduke (786783) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560005)

Everytime I buy a new computer, I sue the NIC manufacturer to give me the same MAC address as my old one.

When rules are for the others, is there any rule left?

Re:Ouch... Keep your IP? (1)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560033)

Oh well, I hope this breaks the internet. I'm sick of the internet.

Would you like to join my renegade interweb? That's what call it. The interweb. But unlike when most people use that term, it's really what it's called. Or I3, both are ok. /me hands jakt a pamphlet

Transfering name servers to new IP (1)

suso (153703) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560051)

However, when an ISP goes under and you need to switch upstream providers, it's a pain in the neck to switch hundreds of domains over to new IPs, especially when they use several different registrars.

But, nevertheless, I agree, this is a stupid ruling and if enforced, will probably mess up the Internet.

All the work to organize, cut short by THE LAW.

Re:Transfering name servers to new IP (1)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560084)

However, when an ISP goes under and you need to switch upstream providers, it's a pain in the neck to switch hundreds of domains over to new IPs, especially when they use several different registrars.


This is why we have Perl. And CNAME records. :)

Re:Transfering name servers to new IP (1)

Feyr (449684) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560121)

that's what you get a PORTABLE space for.

i'm following nanog, and the customer that sued got attributed a portable address space from arin last year. they are just too lazy to renumber

Re:Ouch... Keep your IP? (1)

qwerty75 (775323) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560111)

Well, there are some administrators out there that do not fully understand the concept of DNS and have used Static IP's for various connections. Such as VPN's, Email, Citrix, SSH, FTP, the list goes on. I think you would incur alot more downtime by having your IP switched to another provider than if you just correctly used DNS and modified all your records. I certainly agree that keeping your IP's is a pointless case. Esp if IPV6 ever shows up. Sounds like a Troll looking for publicity.

The risks... (4, Interesting)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559911)

of non-technical judges ruling on technical matters become evident once again.

Reminds me of "average" people voting regarding nuclear power...

Re:The risks... (4, Interesting)

n4vu (563076) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559986)

This has got to rank right up there with the Indiana legislature deliberating whether pi should be declared to be 3, back in 1897. At least they had the wisdom not to do it.

Re:The risks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560012)

Yeah, but imagine a Beowulf cluster of these judges... (ducks)

Average people (3, Insightful)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560100)

If average people cannot vote and decide about nuclear power, however uneducated they may be, who should decide?

If the average person has the power to vote for a leader, and that leader has the power to implement nuclear power, then there isn't much difference in putting anything to the vote.

The reality is, we have to respect everyones opinions for what they are, no matter how irrelevant they may be.

I agree with you though about the judge, in terms of law, this is about right and wrong, and in terms of is someone entitled to keep an IP address, isn't it simply a case that it never belonged to his ISP in the first place? only through licensing?

I thought ICANN had the final word?

Seems strange to me!

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9559912)

First Post

FIRST POST!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9559916)

w00t!

What benifit to the person that brought the suit? (5, Interesting)

nlinecomputers (602059) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559917)

I don't understand why this was in a court. What use is this to the person that filed the suit. It can't work. Is this just an asshole with a axe to grind who found a stupid/ignorant judge?

Re:What benifit to the person that brought the sui (1)

senzafine (630873) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559981)

FYI - I have a pantent on "portable IP addresses". I'm going to be rich!

This won't make it too far due to the technical implications it would have. That was obviously not considered or understood in this decision.

Kudos to whoever that guy is that tried to take an IP address with him. Clever thinking!

Re:What benifit to the person that brought the sui (2, Insightful)

defile (1059) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559993)

Some idiot probably hired a bunch of idiots to migrate their web site to a new provider, they probably fucked DNS to hell, the idiot probably demanded that the ISP just allow them to take the IP address and be done with it. In the meantime, the idiot went out of business because his site was down, and the ISP that said "you're crazy we can't do any of this!!" gets blamed.

Yeah (1)

bsd4me (759597) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560052)

I don't get it either. The article didn't mention anything about why the customer wanted to keep the IP block. My only guess is that he/she/it configured something and used IP addresses instead of names, and he/she/it doesn't have access to a box to reconfigure it. However, NAT should be able to solve that problem, since that's kinda one of the things it was designed to do.

It's possible to do... (4, Insightful)

mratitude (782540) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559920)

... but you don't want to pay for it. Take my word for it.

Re:It's possible to do... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560083)

Well yeah... Have every router in the world hold a copy of the route to all 4 billion IP addresses in RAM. It'd work... until the first update & a few million routers decided to download the 4GB file simultaneously.

Portable numbers (4, Funny)

deuist (228133) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559922)

In other news, the U.S. Post Office is letting users keep their zip codes when they move.

Good analogy (1)

csirac (574795) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559995)

Surely the brain-dead judge should have stopped and thought for a second if someone had said that sentence to him...

For those that missed it... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560011)

This was an april fools on NPR.

Check it out here [npr.org] .

OK. (5, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559926)

Hands up who understands the legal concept of a temporary restraining order?

Answer : It's temporary, to make sure neither party suffers to greatly until the Actual Judgement gets made.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:OK. (4, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560021)

It's still ridiculous that the judge doesn't have enough brains to toss the case right out. The numeric address space belongs to NAC, a domain name (if registered) belongs to the plaintiff.

Like another poster said, this is like wanting to keep your street address and zip code when you move across country. Imagine how well the mail system would work when my address is "129 main st, smalltown PA 21132" and I live in an igloo in Alaska.

Obviously he doesn't know how TCP/IP works, how the IP address space is organized, or what DNS is (your DNS domain name is your "address", not your dotted-quad IP).

It's dangerous having these jokers ruling on cases like this. Small-time judges like this one tend to have a god-complex, and just love the chance to legislate from the bench.

The upside is, if he pulls it off, it'll give the RIAA a hell of a time trying to subpoena ISPs for information based on IP. They'd have no way to know who owns which address.

Re:OK. (5, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560095)

Obviously he doesn't know how TCP/IP works, how the IP address space is organized, or what DNS is (your DNS domain name is your "address", not your dotted-quad
Right. So, rather sensibly, they've imposed the status quo as a temporary measure, and the judge will use that time to find out the background to the case, and will undoubtedly receive amicus briefs informing them. Then, suitably informed, they'll (s)he'll make the decision.

Theres no reason that a judge should be expected to understand DNS and the Internet routing, any more than you should understand property conveyance law.

Re:OK. (2, Informative)

Bob(TM) (104510) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560063)

Yes, it is not a final judgement. However, it is enforceable, pending final judgement. One of the references quotes the TRO:

"NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the April 2003 Agreement during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and shall not interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, including, but not limited to:

(i) by reassignment of IP address space to any customer; aggregation and/or BGP announcement modifications,

(ii) by directly or indirectly causing the occurrence of superseding or conflicting BGP Global Routing Table entries; filters and/or access lists, and/or

(iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization or access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, (c) provide CUSTOMER with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) within seven (7) days of CUSTOMER's written request for same to the email address/ticket system (network@nac.net), and (d) permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses to any carrier, IP transit or IP peering network."


This is a lot of disruption ... even if temporary.

Re:OK. (1)

mratitude (782540) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560086)

You don't seem to understand the ramifications of even a temporary restraining order and the issue of a priori or in this case a posteriori.

Cooler heads will prevail. The idiots representing the ISP will get their act together and argue this using the "possible vs impossible" for the cost angle surrounding IP technology and likely will prevail. Point being, emphasis is on "likely". This a courtroom after all and unfortunately anything is possible.

Re:OK. (1)

Caceman (682840) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560113)

It's true that this is only a temporary restraining order, but by publishing the details of what is happening here, the ISP can possibly get other interested parties to file amicae curiae briefs. These "friend of the court" briefs will provide expert opinions to the court, and will most likely strengthen the ISP's case. Getting the word out about this is a good move by the ISP's attorney.

-Andrew

Question (2, Interesting)

Soporific (595477) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559935)

I haven't RTFA yet, but is there any proposal in how this is supposed to happen?

~S

Re:Question (-1, Redundant)

mrwonton (456172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559973)

Yeah, its all according to a plan:

1. Allow IP Address Portability, breaking the internet as we now know it
2. ???
3. PROFIT!

Ineresting... (1, Funny)

Captain Rotundo (165816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559938)

I can see how this is good from both sides. Obviously existing IP practice and whatnot makes this very bad, But its also a little bit of consumer freedom, akin to telephone number portability.

Maybe someone forgot to explain to the judge how the system works? or maybe he just didn't care based on this case?

Re:Ineresting... (3, Insightful)

marnargulus (776948) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560093)

This is only akin to telephone number portability if people needed to know what port to switch to at the company. You know like in the old days where they had actual plugs that they moved? DNS is the phone number, and it already is portable. That is the whole idea behind dynamic. Moving an IP is like keeping the port the phone company switches you to. It really is useless to anyone except the phone company or ISP in this case.

Full article text (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9559950)

Full article text - minus karma whoring.

There has been a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by state court
that customers may take non-portable IP space with them when they leave
their provider. Important to realize: THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER HAS
BEEN GRANTED, AND IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD
HAPPEN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED. THERE IS AN ABILITY TO
DISSOLVE IT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO.

This is a matter is of great importance to the entire Internet community.
This type of precedent is very dangerous. If this ruling is upheld it has
the potential to disrupt routing throughout the Internet, and change
practices of business for any Internet Service Provider.

In the TRO, the specific language that is enforced is as follows:

"NAC shall permit CUSTOMER to continue utilization through any
carrier or carriers of CUSTOMER's choice of any IP addresses that were
utilized by, through or on behalf of CUSTOMER under the April 2003
Agreement during the term thereof (the "Prior CUSTOMER Addresses") and
shall not interfere in any way with the use of the Prior CUSTOMER
Addresses, including, but not limited to:

(i) by reassignment of IP address space to any customer;
aggregation and/or BGP announcement modifications,

(ii) by directly or indirectly causing the occurrence of
superseding or conflicting BGP Global Routing Table entries; filters
and/or access lists, and/or

(iii) by directly or indirectly causing reduced prioritization or
access to and/or from the Prior CUSTOMER Addresses, (c) provide CUSTOMER
with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) within seven (7) days of CUSTOMER's
written request for same to the email address/ticket system
(network@nac.net), and (d) permit announcement of the Prior CUSTOMER
Addresses to any carrier, IP transit or IP peering network."

We believe this order to be in direct violation of ARIN policy and the
standard contract that is signed by every entity that is given an
allocation of IP space. The ARIN contract strictly states that the IP
space is NOT property of the ISP and can not be sold or transferred. The
IP blocks in question in this case are very clearly defined as
non-portable space by ARIN.

Section 9 of ARIN's standard Service Agreement clearly states:

"9. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the
numbering resources are not property (real, personal or intellectual) and
that Applicant shall not acquire any property rights in or to any
numbering resources by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise. Applicant
further agrees that it will not attempt, directly or indirectly, to obtain
or assert any trademark, service mark, copyright or any other form of
property rights in any numbering resources in the United States or any
other country."

[ Full ARIN agreement http://www.arin.net/library/agreements/rsa.pdf ]

Further, it is important to realize that this CUSTOMER has already gotten
allocations from ARIN over 15 months ago, and has chosen not to renumber
out of NAC IP space. They have asserted that ARIN did not supply them with
IP space fast enough to allow them to renumber. Since they have gotten
allocations from ARIN, we are confident they have signed ARIN's RSA as
well, and are aware of the above point (9).

If this ruling stands and a new precedent is set, any customer of any
carrier would be allowed to take their IP space with them when they leave
just because it is not convenient for them to renumber. That could be a
single static IP address for a dial-up customer or many thousands of
addresses for a web hosting company. This could mean that if you want to
revoke the address space of a spammer customer, that the court could allow
the customer to simply take the space with them and deny you as the
carrier (and ARIN) their rights to control the space as you (and ARIN) see
fit.

REMEMBER, THE INTERNET USED TO BE BASED UPON PORTABLE IP SPACE, AND IS NO
LONGER FOR SEVERAL TECHNICAL REASONS.

It is important to understand that this is not a situation where a
customer is being forced to leave on short notice. NAC has not revoked the
IP space of the customer. This is a situation where a customer is
exercising their option not to renew their services and is leaving
voluntarily. In addition the customer in question was granted their own IP
space OVER A YEAR AGO and simply chose not to renumber their entire
network. The key issue is that they want to take the space with them AFTER
they leave NAC and are NO LONGER A CUSTOMER.

Why this TRO is bad for the Internet:

1. It undermines ARIN's entire contract and authority to assign IP space.

2. It means that once IP addresses have been assigned / SWIP'ed to a
Customer that the Customer may now have the right to continued use of
those addresses even if the customer leaves the service of the Provider.
In other words the right of the Provider to maintain control and use of
the address space assigned to his network, is to now be subject to the
Customer going to a State Court and getting an Order to take such space
with them. Instead of the Addresses being allocated by delegated
authority of the Department of Commerce and ARIN they become useable by
anyone who convinces a Judge that they have a need for the addresses.

It appears the Customer can keep the addresses for as long as it pleases
the State Court and as long as the Customer can judicially hijack the
space.

The tragic part of this is that the Court which issues the Order does not
even have to hear expert testimony. So the Court can issue such Order
without fully understanding the Internet Technology that is affected or
the havoc it could cause in National and International Communications.

3. Significant potential for routing havoc as pieces of non-portable
blocks of space are no longer controlled by the entity that has the
assignment from ARIN, but by the end user customer for as long as that
customer wants to use them. If the customer was causing a routing problem
by improper routing confirmation the carrier would lose their authority to
revoke or limit the use of the IP space to protect the stability of the
carrier's network. In other words, court-compelled LOAs are a 'bad thing.'

4. Because the IP space is still assigned to the carrier, the carrier
would potentially be responsible to continue to respond to all SPAM and
hacking complaints, DMCA violations, and all other forms of abuse. All of
this abuse responsibility and liability would continue with no recourse to
revoke or limit IP space of that customer and no ability to receive
financial compensation for that task. This is not a theoretical problem,
in the case of this customer we have received numerous abuse complaints
throughout their history as a customer. While they have generally resolved
these issues, it still is a real cost for us to handle. This is something
that has the potential to create a massive burden for the carrier.

5. It would fundamentally change the long standing policy that the carrier
that has the IP space assigned to them has the right to assign and revoke
the IP space as it sees fit, and that the customer has no rights to the IP
space other then the rights that the carrier gives them (through a
delegation from ARIN).

6. If the customer is being DDOSed, or attacked (perhaps they may
even instigate it purposely), and then stops announcing the more
specific routes, the attack when then flow to us, the innocent
bystander. Essentially, the customer could cause a DDOS for which I will
then be billed for. This type of thing has been known to happen in the
past (but not with this CUSTOMER).

As you can see, this TRO has widespread effects, and is something that
everyone in the industry could be affected by. If this precedent is set,
you will soon have everyone acting as if IP's are property, and something
that they are entitled to. I ask for input from everyone in the community
on this. We don't think we're crazy, but want to make sure.

Seeing as how I'm a politician (1)

Senator Bozo (792063) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559955)

i.e. a not-so-net-savvy person, could any explain to me what advantages/disadvantages this could have?

Re:Seeing as how I'm a politician (2, Informative)

B4RSK (626870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560010)

Imagine how well the Post Office would work if everyone could take their street address with them when they move.

Not just their house number... Their entire address, including State and Zip Code.

Soon you'd have CA addresses in DC, DC in WA... Nothing would work.

This is exactly the same thing.

Re:Seeing as how I'm a politician (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560041)

>>i.e. a not-so-net-savvy person, could any
>>explain to me what advantages/disadvantages
>>this could have?

Disadvantges: Huge amount of work to transfer ownership of IP addresses, both administrative and technical

Unlike cell phone numbers which people need to remember to call you, most people contact a website or e-mail address by the domain name which is easily transferable. So when you come to this site, it is www.slashdot.org (or slashdot.org). When I type in that domain name, you are transparently taken to 66.35.250.151.

Since you're people use the domain names to find sites, or send e-mail, there is no visible benefit to keeping the same IP address. The guy sounds like an asshat with a chip on his shoulder.

Re:Seeing as how I'm a politician (1)

untaken_name (660789) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560130)

Yes. However, I will not. I could, though.

Technology Savvy Judges Needed... (5, Insightful)

B4RSK (626870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559957)

This really shows the need for more technology savvy judges.

I imagine the thought process was something like: "Hey, if we can have cell number portability, why can't we have IP address portability? Same thing, right?"

DNS Solves This (4, Insightful)

digitalvengeance (722523) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559960)

This will surely be compared to WLNP, but its different in one key way. The internet has a built in system that alleviates the need for IP Portability, that system is called DNS. Regardless of how many times you change IPs, your domain name can remain constant.

Lets pray the courts don't start setting technical policy more than they already are. How long before I have to enter my MAC address at every console just to make sure any random ARP packets intended for a machine I was just at still get to me here?

Josh

Re:DNS Solves This (1)

customcpu (127165) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560109)

It shouldn't really be compared to WLNP, though. It's more comparable to moving from one city to another and wanting to not only keep your phone number, but your area code also.

ugh (4, Insightful)

dark404 (714846) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559961)

Matters relating to the internet should be outside the jurisdiction of such judges. The internet isn't a local thing, it crosses national borders. Allowing any non-global entity to pass judgement on a portion of the internet is one step towards fragmentation.

And talk about turn the DNS system into a tangled weave of crap. This type of thing will completely nullify the idea of ip-address ranges.

Re:ugh (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560092)

Matters relating to the internet should be outside the jurisdiction of such judges. The internet isn't a local thing, it crosses national borders
If you have an ISP that is a company resident in the US (or wherever) of course it has to fall under that country's laws.

Airlines cross national borders too, but they have to obey the law in whichever country they operate.

Re:ugh (1)

Wudbaer (48473) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560115)

Oh yes ! And air travel should be totally unregulated ! And shipping ! And telephone lines, they also cross borders ! And electrical power grids !

While the ruling does make not very much sense at all from a technical point of view apparently the technical people involved in this case where not able to explain convincingly to the judge why this is a bad idea. But to cry foul and trying to declare the Internet a law-free zone as a reaction is not very useful either.

You react in the same way doctors used to think some decades ago (at least over here in Germany, and yes, I am an MD) that laypeople were too stupid and uninformed to make any medical decisions of their own, even if it was their body. Thank god we have overcome this for the most part and have come to think it to be the fault of the doctor if he/she is not able to explain things sufficiently. I know there are really stupid people who will never get things, but most people are able and willing to learn and understand new things given you really try to explain them in laymans terms in not in technobabble and geekspeech.

ISP solution -- private IP's (2, Interesting)

div_2n (525075) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559962)

If this kind of ruling is upheld, look for public IP's to disappear and for ISP's to provide private IP's or at a bare minimum to do away with statics.

Personalised IP's? (1)

Basehart (633304) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559964)

Wes.tEn.d.Car.Sales

Not like phone numbers (3, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559968)

To be honest, I was half-way afraid the Slashdot crowd would hail this ruling as a strike for the "little guy", but of course most of us are at least a little more technically savvy than the average judge... I think that it is probable (and clearly this is the case with the Judge) that most people think of IP addresses like phone numbers, which of course is not the case.

Re:Not like phone numbers (1, Funny)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560103)

I think that it is probable (and clearly this is the case with the Judge) that most people think of IP addresses like phone numbers, which of course is not the case.

Crap, you're right. Maybe this is *my* fault!

I work a university helpdesk. And when non-savvy people call, I often use a metaphor- IP as phone-number, DNS server as phonebook, hostname as real name in phonebook- to describe why something isn't jiving on their computer. Maybe this judge called me up at some point. Whoops, sorry guys!

Holy flurkin schnit! (2, Funny)

JasonUCF (601670) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559971)

Anybody in that judge's hometown that can give him a cluestick for the 4th of July? It's almost like he thought:

"Huh. IP Address. 172.24.50.24. Huh. Looks like a phone number! Aha! IP Number thingies make people able to call this guy's computer. Hot diggity, it's a phone number, I'm going to get my name in some law books! HEeeeeeyawwww!"

(Ok, so I don't really know if the judge grew up in [redacted], but still.. geeez)

Next thing you know we'll be taking our postal mailboxes with us.

Re:Holy flurkin schnit! (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560032)

Next thing you know we'll be taking our postal mailboxes with us.

What a brilliant idea!

*sarcasm*
I was planning on moving soon anyway and was planning on going the route of filling out the normal mail-forwarding card with the post office... but why? Why should some new tenant get my address when I've been paying for it for the last year!
*/sarcasm*

Re:Holy flurkin schnit! (1)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560069)

Hot diggity, it's a phone number, I'm going to get my name in some law books! HEeeeeeyawwww!"

as the first person to be legally tarred and feathered in 200 years.

This is what DNS is for (4, Insightful)

antarctican (301636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559974)

How stupid can these courts get? Why on earth would someone need to take their IPs with them? If they've configured things such that they're dependent on a certain IP, they obviously have very incompetent system s staff.

This is what DNS is for, so you can plunk any IP in and have it resolve properly.

No different then cell phone number portability. (-1, Troll)

sllim (95682) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559979)

I completly understand that there are technical challenges ahead.
If we can drive a remote controlled car on mars I think we can overcome this issue.

I mean, I understand that to the average user the IP address is transparent. You can change the IP address your WWW address goes to.
But you know, I am not certain you should have too.

I am talking over my head here, my knowledge is not such that I should be permitted to say stuff like this. But I am just sitting here thinking about the issue.

Do you suppose there is any precedent for, say a small business owner who has a web presence. However his provider sucks rocks. And the small business owner takes the abuse from the provider because he thinks his WWW address is tied into the provider or maybe it is too difficult to do it?

In such a case IP portability might put the power back in the hands of the consumer.

Very... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560075)

...Nice Troll.

Re:No different then cell phone number portability (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560079)

If you had IP portability, even on blocks no smaller than 24 bits (x.x.x.y, where y changes) the size of routing tables would spiral upward and out of control almost immediately. Put simply the number of routes goes up to the point where not only can most routers not even handle it, but everything slows to a virtual halt as zillions of routes are processed.

It is not impossible, few things are, but it would require a significant investment in time, money, and new software for every backbone provider.

The 4-11 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9559983)

http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/

Some information for you!

Re:The 4-11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560118)

http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ [e-gerbil.net]

At least make it a clicky, you Anonymous bastard! Must /.!

I say let it stay... (1)

RandoMBU (740204) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559996)

...But only if the customer is forced to pay for it. This is one situation where the companies involved shouldn't be responsible for the financial outlay, as they system was never designed with "IP portability" in mind in the first place.

How can a state court enforce something like this? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9559997)

If the ISP is in another state they would be attempting to regulate interstate commerce, and even within their own state they are not the governing body assigning IP addresses.

It would be like the state government voiding FCC rules and telling a radio station they could keep their "WKRP" station title even if the federal government was doing the licensing.

So why don't ... (1)

nosfucious (157958) | more than 10 years ago | (#9559998)

they and everyone else just refuse to recognise the movement of the IP addresses. This order will not affect anyone else in another country.

Pretty useless to have an IP range if no one will route to it.* About the only result will be witless wonders walking away with various ranges, resulting in a (further) shortage of addresses.

* Yes I know a NAT device could be used in conjunction with another IP address, however there are already three ranges assigned for use in a private intranets.

Re:So why don't ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560080)

Pretty useless to have an IP range if no one will route to it.* About the only result will be witless wonders walking away with various ranges, resulting in a (further) shortage of addresses.

That would actually not be a bad punishment. DNS servers could stop resolving to that particular block of IP's. If enough did it (and assuming they are not subject to New Jersey regulation) it would make the address the digital equivalent of swampland.

Judge probably thinks it's like cell phones (2, Interesting)

TheAtomicElec (784987) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560003)

Well if you consider that recently cell phone numbers have become portable between different cellular carriers, then it seems this judge is just thinking "Hmm, IP addresses are a bunch of numbers... must be like cell phone numbers except for computers..."

Big whoop? (2, Insightful)

ChimpyMonkey (748966) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560016)

There is no mention of the size of the customers IP range. For all we know it could be a /16, which while in itself would be strange (non portable /16, unheard of), it wouldn't be a techinical problem. Anything down to about a /23 wouldn't be a major issue. 55% of routes in the globabl BGP table are /24s, an extra /23 would barely register. If its a /24 or less, then the judge needs to be hit with a clue stick. Whatever happens, its going to change the definition of "public share resource" forever. Honestly, the someone needs to explain to the judge that IP space is not owned, it is (for lack of a better word) leased to the user. I'm getting off my high horse now before....

I'd be happy if you could just move it (-1, Offtopic)

squarefish (561836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560017)

I recently moved and kept covad as my provider, but the process was total bullshit and took over two months total.

here were the problems:
they charged me a $250 cancellation fee even though the order for the new address was placed at the same time.

they would not allow me to keep my active static ip (I moved less then a mile away and use the same CO)

the line has been active but not working for over a month of that time, since I'm rarely at the location it made it very difficult to troubleshoot the exact issue.

I have asked repeatedly if I would have to change the internal router settings and they've said no- just move the network and equipment and it will work automatically at the new location. total lies.

I'm leaving them as soon as my contract is up. this was total bullshit.

Virtual networks, virtual addresses (2, Informative)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560018)


This is NOT like moving the physical address of a house, its like transfering your cell-phone number from one supplier to another, the phone numbers is actually a virtual address there are network specific addresses that DON'T get transfered. Now part of the issue here is that DNS resolves as a hierachy based on the "."s in the addresses. This means that really the domain name is equivalent to the phone number. But the connection address is actually a MAC Address so maybe we should consider the IP address to be the virtual address that can be changed.

Transfering IP addresses is a matter of DNS configuration, what this would require is old ISPs to contain references to the new ISP for the old IDs. Is that really so technically difficult ? There are many unanswered questions here but I'm not sure there is anything that is as significant an impact as is claimed.

It is NOT like moving a house address, because that is a physical address in a physical network, like MAC. IP and DNS are VIRTUAL addresses on a virtual network.

If phone companies do it, why shouldn't ISPs ?

And think about this when the world goes IPv6, no worry about running out of numbers, but do you want to re-programme your internal house network when you move ?

In the long run (2, Interesting)

Grell (9450) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560024)

Assuming this doesn't happen to whole IP ranges, won't IPV6 lessen the potential impact of this?

One or two small subnets off the huge amount that will be available doesn't seem so bad, and could spur some interesting development/business plans.

Just a thought.

~G

Can the law gurus clarify? (2, Insightful)

wwest4 (183559) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560035)

> if this ruling stands and a new precedent is set, any customer of any
> carrier would be allowed to take their IP space with them when they leave
> just because it is not convenient for them to renumber.

Umm... isn't this alarmist? If this were established as a precedent (which it's not) it is a state court ruling... aren't state courts reluctant to accept other states' courts rulings as precedent?

Another example of judges being uninformed... (2, Interesting)

hitech69 (78566) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560043)

This is just another example of attorney's taking advantage of Judge's being malinformed on current technologies. I'd like to see them start advertising /30's on the backbone. Since they don't, should be interesting to see how this customer can take an IP with him, considering that the IP addresses aren't owned, they are assigned. Therefore there can never be a conveyance of ownership.

You Cell phone users started this precedent (2, Interesting)

The Bod (18970) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560058)

You people who demanded cell phone number portability started this precedent. This is exactly what I was alluding to when I posted this [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org] . The second post better explains my point.

So what? (4, Insightful)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560060)

Ok, he takes a block of IP addresses, and connects to his new ISP. Surprise, nothing works!He calls the ISP and they laugh. He sues, and a different judge rules he can't force the new ISP to use his old IP addresses.

So a block of IP addresses is gone permanently from the internet. Well, at least until overturned on appeal. At the moment, it's not much different from companies sitting on large blocks of addresses and refusing to give them up.

I get first dibs on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9560062)

192.168.1.1.

Take that, routers!

Can I port my IP? (5, Interesting)

krray (605395) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560065)

I can just imagine what the routing [IPv4] tables would look like. It's bad enough _now_ as it is. Time for everybody to upgrade their memory otherwise...

Is IPv6 routing at the core level any more efficient? Or would this just aggravate this problem?

This is ridiculous -- I've switched core ISP's multiple times for various reasons. The sad thing is reverse lookup on a few very old IP's are still unchanged (and I've even sent them reminders over the years [!]). I've been through controlled migrations where nobody notices anything to cut and switch botch jobs and have had little issue flipping DNS servers over to new IP's (I've always served myself at work, home, other offices I've set up, etc :). Sure, some DNS servers won't honor my short timeout setup, but usually within 24 hours the new information has propagated the Internet as needed.

I've never been willing to pay what it costs to own my IP block or even [!] a single address. I'm not Motorola or Apple and what's the problem with "renting" my IP much like I've only been able to do in the past with my [US] phone number? I love the fact that I was able to port my 20 year home phone line to VoIP -- and because of it dialing in the future will become very interesting. Am I in LA? Chicago? New York? For the poor sap -- is my next call local, long distance, band-b, band-c and what will it cost? Now off-topic and I digress...

Hopefully the courts don't see phone number portability as precedence ... can you imagine what the telco's are going through in figuring out routing tables now? Something like this could finally melt the Internet. And ironically my phone line. :)

the only place this could help (1)

zenrandom (708587) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560076)

The only place where I could see this helping is being able to take the IP address assigned to a nameserver someplace else. Nameservers moving across IP space sucks. However, it's still a stupid idea.

This could be good, though... (1)

Llama_STi (745859) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560085)

This seems to be a first step towards people having their own personal IP's. I can see a future where babies are born, given a name, citizenship, and IP. It does make sense when you think about it. Why should blocks of IP's remain one company's property?

It's temporary. Relax. (2, Insightful)

Minwee (522556) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560102)

As long a the plaintif coughs up the dough for additional routers to handle this idiocy, that's fine.

The sad thing is that they already _had_ their own IP space assigned to them, but (according to NAC, at least) were too lazy to migrate to it.

Why bother doing all that hard technical work when you can call your lawyers and force someone else to do it for you? All the cool kids are doing it.

this ruling makes sense... (1)

m2bord (781676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560114)

this falls right into line with the new "take your number with you" initiative. think about it... it can be argued that some folks are associated with their ip address (i know it's a bad argument but it can be argued just the same) and as such it stands to reason that the individual should be allowed to carry that ip with him. is it relevant that the net's infrastructure is not designed for this...yes. but my thinking is that this judge is just agreeing with the plaintiff in order to let an appeals court (and higher minds) take a stab at this because the plaintiff may not have the means to file and pursue an appeal however an isp is more likely to have the resources and eventually the backing (from other isps and the net community) to challenge this ruling.

Sounds like the customer needs to know about NAT (1)

lingsb (192878) | more than 10 years ago | (#9560129)

If the customer wants to keep using the same IP addresses, they need a NAT router which translates them to their assigned external addresses when the IP packets leave their network.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?