Another day, another illicit SQUAT - WebNX (AS18450) 103.11.67.0/24

Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sun Oct 30 02:45:29 UTC 2016


In message <5815013F.2080502 at foobar.org>, 
Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

>> But my overall point remains.  If there were ever to be an election where
>> we were all asked who we wanted to see become the once and future Routing
>> Police, the RIRs would not be my own personal first choice.
>
>Great, we're agreed then.  So why do you keep on bringing them up in
>this context and criticising them whenever someone squats some block of
>address space?

References please?

*I* didn't introduce the topic of RIRs into this thread.  It would appear
that Ken Chase did that:

   http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-October/088943.html

Later on, I bemoaned what I still feel is a rather lousey WHOIS referrals
system, among and between the various RIR WHOIS data bases... with
respect to *allocations* (not route registrations)... and it was
entirely appropriate for me to mention that, in this thread, as the
problem most definitely did impact not only _my_ ability to figure
out who the bleep, if anyone, 103.11.67.0/24 is actually registered
to, but actually, anyone's ability to do so, including, apparently,
bgp.he.net.

But this criticism has/had nothing whatever to do, specifically, with
either routing or the (hypothetical) Routing Police.  If the totality
of the RIR WHOIS data bases are needlessly difficult to extract accurate
information out of, then this negatively affects *all* uses (and all
users) of these data bases, whether one is investigating possible
routing squats, or whether one is just trying to figure out who
currently owns the block that all of your corporate intellectual
property has just been surreptitiously exfiltrated to.


Regards,
rfg


More information about the NANOG mailing list