DoD IP Space

Sun Apr 25 16:20:01 UTC 2021

On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 11:27 AM Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:

> This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of
> transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. I’m going
> to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and detailed —
> purpose can be known. The secret places of our government have proven
> themselves untrustworthy in the protection of citizens’ data and networks.
> They tend to think they know “what’s good for” us.
>
>  -mel
>
>

If you apply that ideology to 0/0 you're not going to have much of an
Internet beyond cat pics.

Wish i was in the room when they turned it on. I hope they make a tiktok of
the expressions of everyone looking at the first data. [ joke ]

Warm regards,

-M<

> On Apr 24, 2021, at 8:05 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
> 
> As noted -
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-address-mystery/#click=https://t.co/mVh26yBq9G
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
> On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:35 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>
> 
> Tom –
>
> Most definitely: lack of routing history is not at all a reliable
> indicator of the potential for valid routing of a given IPv4 block in the
> future, so best practice suggest that allocated address space should not be
> blocked by others without specific cause.
>
> Doing otherwise opens one up to unexpected surprises when issued space
> suddenly becomes more active in routing and is yet is inexplicably
> unreachable for some destinations.
>
> /John
>
> On Nov 5, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>
>
> Using the generally accepted definition of a bogon ( RFC 1918 / 5735 /
> 6598 + netblock not allocated by an RiR ), 22/8 is not a bogon and
> shouldn't be treated as one.
>
> The DoD does not announce it to the DFZ, as is their choice, but nothing
> says they may not change that position tomorrow. There are plenty of
> subnets out there that are properly allocated by an RiR, but the assignees
> do not send them to the DFZ because of $reasons.
>
> In my opinion, creating bogon lists that include allocated but not
> advertised prefixes is poor practice that is likely to end up biting an
> operator at one point or another.
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:45 AM Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Peace,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 4:55 PM David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>> > On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> This thread got me to wondering, is there any
>> >> legitimate reason to see 22/8 on the public
>> >> Internet?  Or would it be okay to treat 22/8
>> >> like a Bogon and drop it at the network edge?
>> >
>> > Given the transfer market for IPv4 addresses,
>> > the spot price for IPv4 addresses, and the need
>> > of even governments to find “free” (as in
>> > unconstrained) money, I’d think treating any
>> > legacy /8 as a bogon would not be prudent.
>>
>> It has been said before in this thread that the DoD actively uses this
>> network internally.  I believe if the DoD were to cut costs, they
>> would be able to do it much more effectively in many other areas, and
>> their IPv4 networks would be about the last thing they would think of
>> (along with switching off ACs Bernard Ebbers-style).  With that in
>> mind, treating the DoD networks as bogons now makes total sense to me.
>>
>> --
>> Töma
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210425/a29a3375/attachment.html>