NEVERMIND! (was: ARIN Fraud Reporting Form ... )

Sun Oct 3 07:51:56 UTC 2010

In message <17104.1285997192 at tristatelogic.com>, I wrote:

>>> If you can put an annotation into a whois records for a POC,
>>> saying explicity that you can't get ahold of this person, then it would
>>> seem to me to be a rather trivial matter of programming to transplant
>>> a very similar sort of annotation into each and every IP block or AS
>>> record that has that same specific POC record as one of its associated
>>> POC records, either Admin, or Technical, or whatever.
>>
>>Also a nice idea, and one that I've taken as a formal suggestion for
>>improvement.

I see now that I really need to back up a couple of steps here and ask John
for something which is, in a way, entirely different from what I have asked
for so far. (See above.)  And in fact, this one ought to be as EASY AS PIE
for ARIN to implement, since it would appear that they are ALREADY DOING IT.

I asked John for a ``new'' kind of ``this is not quite right'' annotation
within AS and IP block whois records.  *And* I asked him to make these
annotations public, right within the public WHOIS records... *not* just
within some special, semi-secret feed of some special, semi-secret version
of the WHOIS data base.

So while I was looking at the WHOIS records for the set of blocks that were
(apparently now past tense) being 'jacked by AS14202 earlier today (Saturday)
I happened to come across the following annotation in one of the relevant
IP block WHOIS records (but _only_ one):

  Comment:        The information for this network has been reported to
  Comment:        be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has
  Comment:        been unsuccessful. To provide current contact information,
  Comment:        please e-mail hostmaster at arin.net.

YESSS!  This is exactly the kind of thing I have been asking for!

But more to the point, this is the exact kind of thing that (very bizzarely)
John Curran just told me that he would accept as, in effect, and enhancement
request... AS IF IT DIDN'T ALREADY EXIST, or as if ARIN wasn't already doing
this exact thing.  (See the WHOIS for NET-204-89-0-0-1, which, as we speak,
contains the above helpful annotation.)

So OK, John... Can you explain yourself... please?  Why did you say you
were accepting my request into your suggestion box, when it appears that
ARIN has already been doing exactly the thing I asked for... even if only
haphazardly, in a disorganized way, and only within a limited number of
cases?

I googled for some of the verbage in the above notice, and I got over 9,000
hits.  So obviously, this notice that's present within the WHOIS record
for NET-204-89-0-0-1... and many many many others... isn't a ``one off''.
You ARIN folks have apparently already placed that same annotaion in lots and
lots of AS and IP block records.  Maybe you haven't been doing it _lately_
or perhaps maybe you haven't been doing it _consistantly_, but that's a
hell of a different thing that just playing dumb and/or saying (or implying)
that ARIN has never done it at all, don't you agree John?

So let's get down to brass tacks here.  John, you can see the annotation
that's present within the WHOIS record for NET-204-89-0-0-1 just as well
as I can.  And you obviously don't have any trouble with understanding
the English language, and the annotation is clear and straightforward.
ARIN has been unable to verify the POC.  And this annotation is _not_
just on the POC record itself.  It is on an IP block WHOIS record.  This
is _exactly_ what I was asking for.  ARIN has clearly already been doing it,
so there's no need for a whole new study committee, an environmental impact
statement, circulation of proposals, sub-committee delegation, advancement
of the proposal back to the super-committee for re-review, recirculation,
republication, balloting, re-balloting, amendment, etc., etc., etc.,
in other words all of the bullshit bureaucratic stumbling blocks that
bureaucrats... like my favorite, Sir Humphrey Appleby... put up as road-
blocks to even the smallest and simplest bit of forward movement.

I'll say it again, because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding:
Clearly, ARIN has already been doing this... putting in these WHOIS record
annotations.  I have LOTS of example of that.

So now, John, did someone ever expressely *withdraw* ARIN's permission to
create and attach these exact sorts of annotations?  If so, who, and when?

If not, then the ball's in your court John, and your choice is simple,
I think:  Do you want to do something simple... something that ARIN
quite obviously already has permission to do... or do you want to be
Sir Humphrey Appleby and smother this small simple idea in its crib with
layer upon layer of bureaucracy?

If the latter, then I have every confidence that you are skilled enough
to succeed at erecting an impenetrable wall of bureaucracy.  If the former
however, then when should we expect to start seeing these annotations in
_all_ of the IP block and AS WHOIS records that have uncontactable POCs...
a set which ARIN has, apparently, already identified, in spades.

(If your staff can't get this done in a week, then please do contact me
off list, because I'm quite sure that _I_ can do it in a half an hour,
in Perl... and I'd be only too happy to volunteer my time for this good
cause.)

You might well ask ``What would be the point of all this?  What would be
the use?''  The point and the usefulness is that if these kinds of annotations
are present within AS and IP block WHOIS records, then guys like the poor
overworked, well-meaning manager of Colosseum.com (AS19842) who I spoke to
earlier today about his customer, AS14202, and all of the hijacked IP
space it was announcing would be able to see at a glance that something
isn't right.  And who knows?  Maybe even if those annotations were in
there for all of the blocks that are _still_ being hijacked by AS6061 and
AS10392, even as we speak, then maybe it would be just a little less easy
for companies like Beyond The Network America to play dumb, and to act
like they don't know exactly what's really going on here.  And that would
be helpful.

Regards,
rfg