HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?

Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Thu Mar 31 14:32:51 CDT 2011


In message <AANLkTikMqBx=CU5AuTr7addyn7U7wbeOWw2qA9wDZNhC at mail.gmail.com>,
rr <rooknee at gmail.com> wrote:

>For the record, Integra Telecom did have LOA for said netblock.
>Needless to say LOA was forged on company letterhead with appropriate
>signatures. Once brought to our attention we attempted to contact
>customer to no avail, netblock has been removed until they prove
>otherwise.
>
>Randy Rooney


Mr. Rooney,

Since you have been kind enough to drop by, you know, to help clarify what
went on here, I wonder if you would mind very much just providing a couple
of small additional clarifications.

First, could you tell me what job title you hold at Integra Telecom please?
(I wouldn't even ask, but you are apparently posting from a gmail account,
and that always makes me a bit... well... leary.)

Second, because I am actually an ignorant son-of-a-bitch (despite any
possible appearances to the contrary), I wonder if, just for my personal
edification, you could tell me exactly what "LOA" stands for in this context.
(Yes, I really don't know, but would like to.)

Thirdly, I'd very much like to know if your company is in the habit of
providing services (e.g. transit, routing) to other parties at no charge,
and for extended periods of time

Lastly, assuming that your company is NOT in the habit of providing services
(e.g. routing, transit) to other parties at no charge, then I think that I
can speak for many here when I say that I would really appreciate it if you
could tell me/us whose name was on the check that was used to pay for the
services that your company apparently did provide to the 159.223.0.0/16 IP
block, apparently for a period in excess of three months.

If in fact the other party involved in this incident deceived and defrauded
you in some way, then I hardly think that this information, i.e. the name
on the check that paid for all this, is something that Integra has any
special obligation to keep secret.  Even if there ever had been any such
obligation, leagl, ethical, or otherwise, I do believe that the other
party involved has now nullified any such obligation by their very act
of comitting a rather outrageous and damaging fraud upon your company.

I look forward to your response.


Regards,
rfg





More information about the NANOG mailing list