DoD IP Space

Mon Apr 26 13:41:10 UTC 2021

>
> Wish i was in the room when they turned it on. I hope they make a tiktok
> of the expressions of everyone looking at the first data. [ joke ]
>

That would have been fascinating to see. (The technical bits, maybe not so
much the Tik Tok.)

Some chat threads with industry friends over the years in the last few
months on this topic has been frustrating but enlightening. Many
conversations about 'someone hijacking space' which eventually leads to
finding out they were using this DoD space in ways that the presence of
these announcements in the DFZ breaks things. I'm running out of "just
because you can doesn't mean you should' memes to reply with.

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 12:21 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 11:27 AM Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> 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
>>
>>
>
> If you apply that ideology to 0/0 you're not going to have much of an
> Internet beyond cat pics.
>
> Wish i was in the room when they turned it on. I hope they make a tiktok
> of the expressions of everyone looking at the first data. [ joke ]
>
> Warm regards,
>
> -M<
>
>
>> On Apr 24, 2021, at 8:05 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> As noted -
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-address-mystery/#click=https://t.co/mVh26yBq9G
>>
>> FYI,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:35 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Tom –
>>
>> Most definitely: lack of routing history is not at all a reliable
>> indicator of the potential for valid routing of a given IPv4 block in the
>> future, so best practice suggest that allocated address space should not be
>> blocked by others without specific cause.
>>
>> Doing otherwise opens one up to unexpected surprises when issued space
>> suddenly becomes more active in routing and is yet is inexplicably
>> unreachable for some destinations.
>>
>> /John
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Using the generally accepted definition of a bogon ( RFC 1918 / 5735 /
>> 6598 + netblock not allocated by an RiR ), 22/8 is not a bogon and
>> shouldn't be treated as one.
>>
>> The DoD does not announce it to the DFZ, as is their choice, but nothing
>> says they may not change that position tomorrow. There are plenty of
>> subnets out there that are properly allocated by an RiR, but the assignees
>> do not send them to the DFZ because of $reasons.
>>
>> In my opinion, creating bogon lists that include allocated but not
>> advertised prefixes is poor practice that is likely to end up biting an
>> operator at one point or another.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:45 AM Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Peace,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 4:55 PM David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>>> > On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> This thread got me to wondering, is there any
>>> >> legitimate reason to see 22/8 on the public
>>> >> Internet?  Or would it be okay to treat 22/8
>>> >> like a Bogon and drop it at the network edge?
>>> >
>>> > Given the transfer market for IPv4 addresses,
>>> > the spot price for IPv4 addresses, and the need
>>> > of even governments to find “free” (as in
>>> > unconstrained) money, I’d think treating any
>>> > legacy /8 as a bogon would not be prudent.
>>>
>>> It has been said before in this thread that the DoD actively uses this
>>> network internally.  I believe if the DoD were to cut costs, they
>>> would be able to do it much more effectively in many other areas, and
>>> their IPv4 networks would be about the last thing they would think of
>>> (along with switching off ACs Bernard Ebbers-style).  With that in
>>> mind, treating the DoD networks as bogons now makes total sense to me.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Töma
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210426/55940d64/attachment.html>