AS11296 -- Hijacked?

Thu Sep 30 03:50:05 UTC 2010

I confess that I find it somewhat tedious to try to answer all criticisms,
individually, on a mailing list when people start ``piling on'', so I hope 
you'll all forgive me if I just try to to do this in one go.

First, as regards to the lack of detail and/or specific in my reports,
I was specifically insructed, by a gentleman who has far more experience
participating here, on the NANOG mailing list, that I do, that I should
NOT include too much lengthy elaboration and/or detail because (rough
quote) ``... those folks in NANOG really only much care about routers and
stuff like that, so don't even digress into topics like spam and such, or
give a whole lot of lengthy details, because their eyes will just glaze
over and/or you'll be accused of being off-topic.  Many of them probably
don't even know what the term `snowshoe spamming' refers to anyway.''

I'll be happy to provide all of the abundant evidence I've collected to
anyone I can verify as being a legitimate network op offlist.

I do need to say however that much of the  relevantevidence can be ob-
tained quite easily, and without any spoon feeding from me, i.e. directly
in the form of applicable/relevant ARIN whois records, all of which are
available to anyone.  Other evidence, specifically the routes that _were_
being announced by AS11296 (and those that still are, currently, by AS10392)
is also freely and publically available from you local friendly looking
glass server.

I have additional evidence... not so much of hijacking, but more relating
to possible/probable snowshoe spamming activity... that is derived, indirectly,
from public data sources, upon which I perform additional crunching with
personally-developed, proprietary software... and that is stuff that I'll
be happy to make available to anybody who can convince me that they are not
playing for the other team.

To the gentleman who wished me good luck in ``getting assistance from the
list in the future'', I thank you for the generosity implied by your
sentiment, and would only like to point out that on this occasion, at
least (and on none others that I can remember off the top of my head)
did I or have I requested assistance from the NANOG mailing list.  On
this occasion, I believe (and believed) that I was _offering_ my help
to NANOG, rather than the other way 'round.)  But again, I thank you for
your concern anyway.

To the gentleman who asked (with respect to the widespread... but certainly
not universal... use of freemail accounts) whether or not ``the general
population are all doing it wrong'', I would answer in the affirmative,
generally, and not specifically with respect to the use of freemail
accounts.  As supporting evidence, I ask that you please begin reading
here:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010

(I have a small mountain of documentation available to support the view
that ``the general population are all doing it wrong'' with respect to
almost anything you can name, and will be only too happy to provide more
links as required/requested.)

To the gentleman who suggested that my un-acceptance of e-mail from gmail,
specifically, might be a black mark aganist my credibility, that's fine,
I have no problem with that.  I certainly never expected nor hoped that
anybody would take any action of any kind based either on my perceived
ephemeral and transitory credibility, or the perceived lack therof.  For
the two recent reports I have made here, and others I may make in future,
the publically available evidence speaks for itself, and my personal
credibility, or lack thereof, is neither here nor there, as a practical
matter.  I am not running for office, and I'm not tring to sell aluminum
siding.  What you think of me personally doesn't affect whether a given
AS or IP block either is or isn't hijacked.  Facts are facts... in this
case mostly publically available... and thankfully are not dependant upon
any one person for validation, least of all me.

To the gentleman who quoted "A decent respect to the opinions of mankind
requires that they should declare the causes.", the beauty and elegance of
that sentiment, and its formulation, while undeniable and holding great
appeal for any and all who call these United States home, actually applied
to a rather different and more serious situation, I think, i.e. the dis-
solution of political bands... dissolution which, I think everyone knew
at the time, was highly likely to lead to a costly and bloody war... a
rather more serious outcome than any likely to derive from a mere NANOG
posting.  Still, you make a reasonable point, and my only response is to
reiterate what I have said above, i.e. that most of the substantiating
documentation is readily and freely available from various public sources,
and requires only the most modest amounts of motivation to independently
obtain.

To the gentleman who suggested that one could perpetrate what amounted to
a DDoS attack, simply by making a derogatory posting about a given network
on the NANOG mailing list, I can only ask ``Does that really work??''  If
it does, then I'll have to remember to try it sometime, when I'm bored.
(There are lots of naughty people on the Internet I'd like to spank, but
I think that if I was really of a mind to seriously spank some of them,
I might try route injection first.  More effective and far more 31337.
Plus I think the Russians are having a half price sale on that service
next month.  :-)

To the gentleman who pointed out that a so-called ``appeal to authority''
is a lousey way to try to support any given claim, yea, you're absolutely
right.  I try never to do it myself.  Personally, I find facts much more
persuasive that anybody's rep.

That same gentleman apparently took issue with my original post, apparently
asserting that it wasn't ``...written in a way that recognizes that clued,
skeptical individuals are going to carefully analyze it.''  All I can say
is that in my own humble opinion, it actually _was_ written in _precisely_
that way. (The fact that it was witten that way partly explains why it was
so terse.)

To the gentleman who suggested that I was "Joe Blow", I can only say "Yea?
So?  Even if I am, what's yer point?"  Just as nobody should evaluate
important claims based only on somone's positive reputation alone, likewise,
in my view, nobody should evaluate important claims exclusively on the basis
of anyones negative or non-existant reputation either.

I _am_ Joe Blow, and proud of it!

To paraphrase an old TV commercial ``Don't hate me because I'm pretty.
Don't believe me because I'm "somebody".  Don't dis-believe me because
I'm "nobody".  You've got a keybord and eyes of your own.  May I respectfully
suggest that you use them?''

Regards,
rfg