On 3-aug-2007, at 13:32, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't see a cause of action a third party could bring here.
Agree. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that random IP users have standing for suing other random IP users.
In the past digital has claimed to have used a very large fraction of their allocation. Its just behind a firewall.
They used to run a big FTP server at 16.1 for a long time. There are several levels of use, ranging from public servers to private, through not-very-visible routed use to unrouted internal. Obviously with any type of use, it's going to be painful to move away from that to free up the space, but the question is how much internet-wide pain we're willing to accept to avoid some private pain for organizations having those very large address blocks.
However, by the time that the pain level is high enough that we get around to answering that, it's going to be too late to do much about it. If we really only have 3.5 years left, it's pretty much too late to do anything with IPv4. And if our address use keeps going up (195 million addresses used in the past 12 months, doesn't even include corrections for ARIN book keeping strangeness), we'll be burning through 400 million addresses or so in 2010, so reclaiming ALL ~ 40 legacy class As means little more than a year extra time. We can just as easily create that extra year by taking action NOW instead of next year.
Rather than lay out ten million plus on a lawsuit that is unlikely to achieve the desired result the isp is going to pay hp.
Ok, so money changes hands, and then what? ARIN obviously can't rubberstamp the title transfer after this week's public declaration against address trading, so the ISP in question will have to get the rest of the world to route it despite angry looks (or worse?) from ARIN. And forget about routing certificates, which should be deployed to some degree by then.
Do not expect the courts to be as willing to step into this situation and decide it the way you think it should be decided. US judges are political appointments. Most are ideologically committed to free market arguments.
I don't think many of them are willing to make a ruling that effectively breaks the internet.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf