Purchased IPv4 Woes

Pete Baldwin pete at tccmail.ca
Sun Mar 12 23:26:13 UTC 2017

     So just to be clear here, the reason I made this post isn't to have 
some help with removing our block from 'official' blacklists around the 
world.   We checked the lists and we weren't on them.   The last (known) 
list this block was on was in September 2016, so just over 6 months ago 
now, and before we purchased it.

     I made this post because it appears that various networks use/used 
some sort of black list at some point, but haven't checked the lists in 
quite some time, or the block behaviour was so bad that admins blocked 
it manually. I'm here to say that we now own it and we plan on taking 
care of it in a responsible manner.

     I'm not blaming blacklists for holding our block hostage, as I 
don't see our block IN any blacklists.   This thread was for me to say 
"hey, whoever had this thing in the past must have messed with your 
network enough to block it for a long time, but now I own it and plan on 
keeping it clean, so if you could remove us it would be better for 
everyone."   My contact information has been in each email, so it's 
easily verifiable.

     We had limited time with which to acquire space, and we 
back-checked the space as well as we could.   I was not expecting so 
many networks to have it blocked when it isn't actually listed anywhere, 
and I didn't have a method to verify that.

     That being said, I like where the thread is going as far as 
discussing AS rep vs CIDR rep, and other ways with which to verify 
whether a block has been transferred to a 'safe' entity vs  a 
'potentially hostile' entity or same entity under a new name.


Pete Baldwin
Tuckersmith Communications
(P) 519-565-2400
(C) 519-441-7383

On 03/12/2017 01:33 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 05:59:59PM +0200, Chris Knipe wrote:
>> It's a loosing battle, and a failed system.  Don't blame the purchaser,
>> it's a lack of oversight on the part of who ever does the blacklisting.
> You bought damaged goods which aren't fit for the purpose you have in mind.
> If you had performed due diligence research before finalizing the purchase,
> perhaps you would have chosen not to do so.
> If the seller had done their due diligence research, perhaps they could
> have more accurately described what they were selling to you.
> There's certainly a lack of "oversight" here, but it's not on the part
> of the various blacklists which have *correctly* noted the dubious history
> of the allocation in question.  And which, I might add, are not in
> possession of proof that it doesn't still belong to the same people
> who generated that dubious history.  In other words, everything said
> here thus far might be precisely the truth, or it might be the 14,273th
> iteration of a ruse designed to get the block unlisted so that it can
> be once again utilized for abuse.
> ---rsk

More information about the NANOG mailing list