Why no SIDR for 174.128.31.0/24

Tue Jan 13 05:16:44 UTC 2009

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:29:55PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:20:28AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > of course, we're sorry we set off folk's broken alarm systems :-)  [ 
> > sense of humor required, leo ]
> 
> Ah, I get the smiley this time.  That's the indication you're not
> serious about the sentence you just wrote!  Ah ha!  So you're not
> sorry you've wasted a whole bunch of people's time today.
> 
> You really should make some friends Randy.  You know, the type of
> people who might have a network, and an ASN, and be ok with you
> injecting their ASN in wierd places and reporting back to you what
> happens.  You might even be able to then get them to provide data
> on what sensors alerted, why they alerted, and other useful things.
> That seems both a lot more useful and respectful than dragging
> random third parties into your research project by force and having
> them turn to 10,000 of their closest friends to figure out what's
> going on.
> 
> And no, I don't have a sense of humor about it.  44 messages of
> (mostly bad) haiku, and another 42 messages about the collateral
> damage of Randy's research project and how it pulls network engineers
> out of funerals.  Even at only 10 seconds per message to see there
> is no operationally useful content that's 14 minutes of my life
> wasted today I will never get back.
> 
> The S/N ratio of the list day has been 0.  I guess the up side is that
> is only down slightly from normal.
> 
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


	there is some indication that this prefix was assigned for 
	a specific experiment, the experiment ran, results published,
	and then the prefix was not properly reclaimed...   and so was
	reused for something else.

	sounds like a poster child for SIDR.


--bill