North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IP renumbering timeframe

  • From: David Schwartz
  • Date: Thu May 09 20:53:17 2002

On Thu, 9 May 2002 20:17:32 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:

>I'm not a lawyer and cannot answer the questions you pose.
>However I fail to see why the interesting legal principles you are
>espousing have anything to do with the original topic of this thread: an
>upstream revoking an assignment upon the severing of its relationship with
>its downstream.

	Because the upstream agreed by contract to be bound by the terms of ARIN's 
address space allocation and assignment guidelines. So if ARIN's guidelines 
specify a grace period to renumber and that grace period was not given, the 
upstream is in violation of their contract with ARIN. I'm arguing that the 
downstream has legal standing to litigate that violation.

	There are any number of documents that specify grace periods for 
renumbering. So the question is, do any of these meet the status of "ARIN 
address space allocation and assignment guidelines"? If they do, then the 
downstream has a legal argument that the upstream is in violation of a 
contract to which the downstream is an intended beneficiary.

	The paragraph below is from a documented specifically identified as an IP 
allocation guideline:

"IP addresses are allocated to ISPs in contiguous blocks, which should remain 
intact. Fragmentation of blocks is discouraged. To avoid fragmentation, ISPs 
are encouraged to require their customers to return address space if they 
change ISPs. Therefore, if a customer moves to another service provider or 
otherwise terminates its contract with an ISP, it is recommended that the 
customer return the network addresses to the ISP and renumber into the new 
provider's address space. The original ISP should allow sufficient time for 
the renumbering process to be completed before requiring the address space to 
be returned."

	So now we can argue over what "recommended" and "should" mean. If a person 
signs a contract that says they "should" do X, they probably will need to 
show good reason to not do Y if I'm harmed by that decision. Other statements 
may be more definitive. This particular dispute isn't important enough to me 
for me to do all the necessary research. I'm just trying to suggest an 
important legal angle that may have been overlooked.