HIJACKED: 126.96.36.199/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?
rooknee at gmail.com
Thu Mar 31 15:24:47 CDT 2011
Hmm, thought it was a NANOG prerequisite to be able to do a google
search. Should be pretty easy to find this info with that tool in your
With the above tool I've got your phone # and would be happy to call
you if you'd like clarification on our process.
Please just reply to me off-list.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
<rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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 188.8.131.52/16 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.
More information about the NANOG