How to prove 192.5.5.0/24 is authorized?

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We have two blocks that had outdated information on them that took 3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 192.5.5.0/24 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 (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
> 
> 