How to prove 192.5.5.0/24 is authorized?

Fri May 2 18:38:53 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.

i think these are reasonable questions and the answers may be instructive.

> Why was the network for F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET (192.5.5.241) 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
> 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?

in my case, answerability and continuity.  but in the general case, i dunno.
-- 
Paul Vixie