How to prove 192.5.5.0/24 is authorized?

Sean Donelan sean at donelan.com
Fri May 2 06:27:08 UTC 2003


I know I'm going to regret this, and I'm not debating that this particular
network block was hijacked, but I do have a couple of questions.

On Thu, 1 May 2003, Kai Schlichting wrote:
> good friends/individuals do not have /16's allocated to them.
> Big institutions have /16's. Such institutions are decidedly too busy and
> not in the business of helping other people run their computer stores.

Perhaps today, but in the pre-CIDR days it wasn't that hard to get a
"Class B" network (what people would call a /16 today).  Even relatively
small networks needed to get Class B's due to RIP, subnets, etc.  If you
had more than about 64 network devices, you probably needed a Class B.
That was one of the big reasons for CIDR.

If you look closely at many of the early registration records for
old networks you'll find lots of questionable entries.

Why was the network for F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET (192.5.5.241) registered
in 1984, but the domain for ISC.ORG not registered until 1994? Why does
the city and state for the ISC.ORG domain registration show up as "null?"

Registrant:
Internet Software Consortium (ISC2-DOM)
   950 Charter Street
    null
   US

   Domain Name: ISC.ORG

According to the California Secretary of State web portal, the Internet
Software Consortium filed their corporate papers on December 17, 1997.

So we have a 1997 corporation with a 1994 domain name using a 1984
network.  Is this proof of evil intent?  Should all ISPs immediately cease
routing the network block for F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET because of questionable
registration records?

> Just like Nick Geyer. What we want is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
> you didn't deceive ARIN or violated ARIN allocation rules in taking over that
> /16. And that proof can't come from you at this point, for obvious lack of
> credibility, given the allegations and probable cause.

Back to the original question Chris Morrow asked a long time ago.  What
should be considered acceptable proof?

If Paul Vixie showed up on my doorstep tomorrow, and asked me to route
192.5.5.0; what proof should I accept from him (or anyone) to demostrate
beyond a reasonable doubt he has the authority to route a particular
network?




More information about the NANOG mailing list