How to prove 220.127.116.11/24 is authorized?
nanog at adns.net
Fri May 2 18:51:35 UTC 2003
Good judgement should prevail. Thats the problem when you start calling
for a bureaucratic solution. Bureucrats read from manuals and are inflexible.
We have two blocks that had outdated information on them that took 3
years of haggling with ARIN to fix.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Vixie" <vixie at vix.com>
To: <nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 13:38
Subject: Re: How to prove 18.104.22.168/24 is authorized?
> > 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.
> i think these are reasonable questions and the answers may be instructive.
> > Why was the network for F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET (22.214.171.124) registered in 1984
> it was an old DEC block, used to contain TOPS20.DEC.COM i think. in the old
> days, transferring network ownership just required consent by both parties.
> since i represented both parties, well, you get the idea.
> > but the domain for ISC.ORG not registered until 1994?
> because it took a year after me leaving DEC (in 1993) to get ISC organized.
> > 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
> because when networksolutions folded, spindled, and mutilated SRI's whois
> data for the Nth time, there was information lost (and gained for that
> matter). i am gradually sorting it all out but it's Really Hard now, not
> like the old e-mail template days.
> > According to the California Secretary of State web portal, the Internet
> > Software Consortium filed their corporate papers on December 17, 1997.
> well so without knowing what city to look in, you have no way to know what
> ficticious name statements or business licenses were issued earlier than
> the state's incorporation goo. (i was only an egg in those days.)
> > 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?
> i hope not, since i think the questionability has some answerability.
> (in other words, i hope y'all judge by merit not by rule.)
> > If Paul Vixie showed up on my doorstep tomorrow, and asked me to route
> > 126.96.36.199; what proof should I accept from him (or anyone) to demostrate
> > beyond a reasonable doubt he has the authority to route a particular
> > network?
> in my case, answerability and continuity. but in the general case, i dunno.
> Paul Vixie
More information about the NANOG