Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

["Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at sprunk.org>]

Thus spake "Bill Manning" <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
> be prepared to defend yourself in court(s) in any number of jurisdictions.
> ... You should have the ISOC/IETF legal team review the creation of
> property rights by the WG chairs and the IESG.  Its not going to be easy
> and its not clear the effort justifies the exposure, at least to me.

Exactly what would an allocation authority be sued for anyways?  The
property in question has no inherent value (being effectively infinite and
free) and there's no obvious basis for ownership disputes when said property
can be replaced at little to no cost.

> You should check w/ the RIRs on their role/position
>  wrt legal precident on address/prefix ownership.

As businesses that owe their livelihood to having monopolies on address
rental, I would think any position they take should be taken with a grain of
salt.

>  If you do this, I will have to rethink my use of IPv6 as tainted
>  goods.  The IETF should stick to -PROTOCOL- development, not create
>  property rights to be fought over in courts.

As many others have noted, this is not new ground.  Nearly every number that
IANA hands out, from ports to MIME types to pre-RIR addresses, is by
convention assumed to be the permanent property of whoever it's allocated
to.  The RIRs' renting of addresses is an abberration, not the norm.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------