DoD IP Space

Sun Apr 25 22:09:36 UTC 2021

Sronan -

I made no claims other than pointing out that IP address blocks in the ARIN registry are subject to ARIN policies.

ARIN was formed specifically so that the Internet community could engage in self-regulation for IP number resources; to wit: "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region” [1] – thus ARIN's policies for management of the registry apply to all resources in the registry because that was inherent to the purpose to which ARIN was formed.

This includes having ARIN "assume full responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) number assignments and related administrative tasks previously handled by NSI.”, whereby ARIN formally became the successor registry operator for organizational assignments in a long chain that includes USC/ISI, SRI, GSI, and NSI.

The community wanted self-governance, and that’s exactly what it got…  the result is a fairly important reason to participate in ARIN policy development and/or governance if you feel strongly about these matters.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

[1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819 - "Internet Moves Toward Privatization / IP numbers handled by non-profit”

On Apr 25, 2021, at 11:38 AM, sronan at ronan-online.com<mailto:sronan at ronan-online.com> wrote:

 So you are claiming that ARIN has jurisdiction over DoD IP space?

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:13 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:

 Sronan -

I’d suggest asking rather than making assertions when it comes to ARIN, as this will avoid propagating existing misinformation in the community.

Many US government agencies, including the US Department of Defense, have signed registration services agreements with ARIN.

From https://account.arin.net/public/member-list -

United States Department of Defense (DoD)

USDDD<https://search.arin.net/rdap?query=USDDD&searchFilter=entity>

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On 25 Apr 2021, at 8:54 AM, sronan at ronan-online.com<mailto:sronan at ronan-online.com> wrote:

Except these DoD blocks don’t fall under ARIM justification, as they predate ARIN. It is very likely that the DoD has never and will never sign any sort of ARIN agreement.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 25, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org<mailto:mel at beckman.org>> wrote:

Mark,

ARIN rules require every IP space holder to publish accurate — and effective —  Admin, Tech, and Abuse POCs. The DOD hasn’t done this, as I pointed out, and as you can test for yourself. Your expectation that the DOD will “generally comply with all of the expected norms” is sorely naive, and already disproven.

As far as “why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your arbitrary standards”, you seem to forget that in the U.S., the government is accountable to the People. Where a private company may not have to explain its purposes, the government most certainly does in the private sector. With these IP spaces being thrust into the civilian realm, yes, they owe the citizenry an explanation of their actions, just as they would if they had started mounting missile launchers on highway overpasses. It’s a direct militarization of a civilian utility.

Keep in mind that the U.S. Government — under all administrations — has shown that it will abuse every technical advantage it can, as long as it can do so in secret. Perhaps you’ve forgotten James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, who falsely testified to Congress that the government does “not wittingly” collect the telephone records of millions of Americans. And he was just the tip of the iceberg. Before Clapper under Obama there was the Bush administration’s Stellar Wind" warrantless surveillance program. The list of government abuse of civilian resources is colossal .

Fighting against that isn’t political. It’s patriotic.

-mel

On Apr 25, 2021, at 12:02 AM, Mark Foster <blakjak at blakjak.net<mailto:blakjak at blakjak.net>> wrote:

On 25/04/2021 3:24 am, Mel Beckman wrote:
This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. I’m going to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and detailed — purpose can be known. The secret places of our government have proven themselves untrustworthy in the protection of citizens’ data and networks. They tend to think they know “what’s good for” us.

-mel

Why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your arbitrary standards, what they intend to do with their IP address ranges?

Failure to advertise the IP address space to the Internet (until now, perhaps) doesn't make the address space any less legitimate, and though I'd expect the DoD to generally comply with all of the expected norms around BGP arrangements and published whois details, at the end of the day, they can nominate who should originate it from their AS and as long as we can see who owns it.... it's just not our business.

Any organisation who's used DoD space in a way that's likely to conflict with, well, the DoD, gambled and lost.

Mark.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210425/69d8ea62/attachment.html>