Class "B" IP BLOCK

Joe Provo nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net
Sun May 4 18:49:23 UTC 2003


Yay! anonymous attacks coming out of the woodwork! Thanks for helping
solidify the procmail rule to plonk any hushmail posts to nanog. I'd
recommend others to do so.

On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 10:49:40AM -0700, ddragon at hushmail.com wrote:
[snip random blathering]
> Getting down to business, I have three larger concerns with the style
> and content of your posting. 
> 
> One, the NANOG AUP (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html) clearly states: 
> "7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names
> and addresses, rather than aliases." 
> 
> With that in mind, I respectfully ask that Susan Harris and the NANOG
> moderators require that you come into compliance with their policy, 

Comply or hit the bricks yourself, coward.

> Second, could you please do something about the high volume of spam 
> originating from and/or referencing your network?  You must be too 
[snip]
- direct connection between an individual hosts' poster and the network 
  you referece is 'specious' at best.  Single-homed PI space tends to 
  not pollute the BGP tables with extraneous ASNs.
- It would require a complete cluebag to believe RCN has anything but
  a sterling standing in handling network abuse. Their (acquired) abuse
  staff continue to do a top-notch job handling items, and their 
  (aquired) network staff prevent spoofed garbage from coming out. Can 
  Mr Anonymous' network claim the same? Do you even run one? 

> Third, can you explain to me the following: 
Mr Anonymous should learn to chase UP the WHOIS referances as well as 
DOWN. I'm not certain, but there might be organizational issues where
the name 'enteract' applies internally to different elements within
the organization.

> EnterAct EACT-ROUTERS-03 (NET-207-229-159-44-1) 207.229.159.44 - 207.229.159.51
> EnterAct EACT-ROUTERS-02 (NET-207-229-159-20-1) 207.229.159.20 - 207.229.159.39
> EnterAct EACT-VHOST-NT03 (NET-207-229-159-52-1) 207.229.159.52 - 207.229.159.255
> EnterAct EACT-CUST-NERGE (NET-207-229-166-224-1) 207.229.166.224 - 207.229.166.239
[snip]
...deaggregates not visible and gosh not returning ICMP - unused trash is
in the database? no way! Telco icbergs taking a long time to make course
corrections? unheard of!

> These prefixes belonging to "EnterAct" are advertised by RCN. Are they
> illlegal customer advertisements, or are you just too clueless to update
> their SWIP records in accordiance with the same ARIN policy you wish
> to see applied to others, now that RCN has acquired EnterAct? Perhaps
> we all should filter them now, and ask questions and carry out an 
> investigation later?  
Apples and oranges. I do challenge you to find an announced aggregate that
hasn't been cleaned up or updated.

> I hope Rob Thomas is taking note, I'm sure these are not only
> bogons, but violate some secret RFC (yeah dude, that's the ticket) 
> documenting reversed IP space.
All the reverses I checked are in order. Perhaps you're so upset your 
zombie network was shut down that you're making typoes?

[snip]
> But "GweepCo" (Is this even a real company?  Can you provide any 
> articles of organization and incorporation?) 
Obviously "cooperative" "domain park" and "sending email" are items alien
to you? There is not now nor was there at the time of allocation any
requirement of incorporation for allocations. There is no lack of
announcement of the space; not allocated in the misty past and unused.
To the point of the [bogus] thread, there is no transfer from one 
organization to another. Other than shooting rubber-tipped darts, what 
is your point child?

[snip domain]
> Mass, Rhode Island, or Canada?  Which will it be?  Can you make up your
> mind please?  Or get some IP space you can verify is yours.
See above; you have trouble discerning the difference between continually
used, functional, and trouble-free allocations and seemingly (in some cases
obviously) hijacked, spottily used, randomly deaggreagted, and trouble-SOME
allocations.  Again, "domain park" and good operational practices of 
multisite DNS servers appear alien to you. 

The listed contact email addresses have never received any requests to
'check up on them'.  If you need to investigate further, we can discuss at
Salt Lake or on the banks of the Charles in July.  Mail direct for the
directions on the latter!

Cheers, and *plonk*,

Joe

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE



More information about the NANOG mailing list