route: 0.0.0.0/32 in LEVEL3 IRR

Wed Jan 31 22:45:41 UTC 2024

>
> Even though it is very risky to steal resources from an organization
> that can deploy a black helicopter or a nuclear warhead over you
>

Seems a bit dramatic. Companies all over the world have been using other
people's public IPs internally for decades. I worked at a place 20 odd
years ago that had an odd numbering scheme internally, and it was someone
else's public space. When I asked why, the guy who built it said "Well I
just liked the pattern."

If you're not announcing someone else's space into the DFZ, or
otherwise trying to do anything shady, the three letter agencies aren't
likely to come knocking. Doesn't mean anyone SHOULD be doing it, but
still.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:49 AM Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at gmail.com> wrote:

> DoD's /8s are usually squatted by networks that run out of private IPv4
> space.
> Even though it is very risky to steal resources from an organization
> that can deploy a black helicopter or a nuclear warhead over you, for
> some reason like it not appearing in the DFZ people seem to like it.
>
>
> Rubens
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:40 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's pretty cool, actually. I keep wondering when someone will offer
> > up a 0.0.0.0/8...
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-0-00.html
> >
> > There must be more people out there than just amazon and google that
> > ran out of 10/8.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:29 AM Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I got 2 bounces for the email addresses seen below for an email similar
> > > to the below...
> > >
> > > Anyone want to remove this IRR entry before anyone notices...???   ;-)
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe that the entry of
> > > route:          0.0.0.0/32
> > >
> > > does not serve any good purpose?
> > >
> > > I was surprised to see it in a list of prefixes from bgpq4 and the very
> > > good https://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/prefix/0.0.0.0 guided me that it's
> in
> > > "Level3".
> > >
> > > I'm wondering how many auto-generated filters contain this unnecessary
> > > prefix....
> > >
> > > PS: Oh, just seen - it's from TODAY. Maybe remove before anyone sees
> it...?
> > >
> > > Thanks for looking into this,
> > > Frank
> > >
> > >
> > > [frank at fisi ~]$ whois -h rr.level3.com 0.0.0.0/32
> > > [Querying rr.level3.com]
> > > [rr.level3.com]
> > > route:          0.0.0.0/32
> > > origin:         AS10753
> > > mnt-by:         TCCGlobalNV-MNT
> > > changed:        ankita.grewal at lumen.com
> > > source:         LEVEL3
> > > last-modified:  2024-01-30T11:04:49Z
> > >
> > >
> > > [frank at fisi ~]$ whois -h rr.level3.com TCCGlobalNV-MNT
> > > [Querying rr.level3.com]
> > > [rr.level3.com]
> > > mntner:         TCCGlobalNV-MNT
> > > descr:          TCC Global N.V.
> > > auth:           CRYPT-PW DummyValue  # Filtered for security
> > > upd-to:         ripehostmaster at eu.centurylink.net
> > > tech-c:         LTHM
> > > admin-c:        LTHM
> > > mnt-by:         TCCGlobalNV-MNT
> > > changed:        ankita.grewal at lumen.com
> > > source:         LEVEL3
> > > last-modified:  2024-01-30T11:01:52Z
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 40 years of net history, a couple songs:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240131/b2f5be7a/attachment.html>