Bryan at bryanfields.net
Fri Jul 19 03:15:42 UTC 2019
On 7/18/19 10:57 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> What's interesting about this is it was not an ARIN allocation,
> and the ARDC folks are not the original registrant. This IANA /8 was
> initially delegated to a community, not an organization.
> So, to the individuals listed in the blog, that I've excerpted
> below, what do you have to say about this?
> Brian Kantor
> kc claffy
> Phil Karn
> Paul Vixie
This is par for the course with ARDC. I was a TAC committee member (I
resigned in disgust just 15 min ago), and the board has failed to inform
anyone this was happening.
I discussed this prior as we could lease it, do something with it, make some
money from it, and was 100% shot down. This has always been Brian Kantor's
private little thing ever since he took over administration of it. This take
over was before ARDC existed, and ARDC was never structured to be a proper
community focused organization. I'd addressed this at TAPR meetings and NANOG
with Brian and KC before. This also over looked the huge conflict of interest
in KC being a board member of ARDC and Network Telescope getting a feed of
44/8 direct at no cost. This 44/8 announcement and UCSD routing broke
connectivity to directly connected BGP subnets for years.
My concern as an ARDC supporter an member is now no planning in the community
for this, many people assume 44/8 is going to be licensed amateurs (I have
many firewalls with permit 44/8 in them), and no accountability of what ARDC
is doing. I believe with Brian retiring from UCSD he's looking for a job and
being a board member of a well funded 501(c)3 can be a lucrative job.
Also it's 100% broken reverse DNS for all of 44/8. :golf clap:
This was theft from the community it was meant to serve.
Bryan Fields, W9CR
Former ARDC TAC member
727-409-1194 - Voice
More information about the NANOG