DoD IP Space

Sun Apr 25 22:34:04 UTC 2021

In the positive side of things, guess we will see IPv6 usage.

Joe Klein

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 6:11 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> Sronan -
>
> I made no claims other than pointing out that IP address blocks in the
> ARIN registry are subject to ARIN policies.
>
> ARIN was formed specifically so that the Internet community could engage
> in self-regulation for IP number resources; to wit: "Creation of ARIN will
> give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers,
> corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which
> they are managed and allocated within the North American region” [1] – thus
> ARIN's policies for management of the registry apply to all resources in
> the registry because that was inherent to the purpose to which ARIN was
> formed.
>
> This includes having ARIN "assume full responsibility for Internet
> Protocol (IP) number assignments and related administrative tasks
> previously handled by NSI.”, whereby ARIN formally became the successor
> registry operator for organizational assignments in a long chain that
> includes USC/ISI, SRI, GSI, and NSI.
>
> The community wanted self-governance, and that’s exactly what it got…  the
> result is a fairly important reason to participate in ARIN policy
> development and/or governance if you feel strongly about these matters.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
> [1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819 - "Internet
> Moves Toward Privatization / IP numbers handled by non-profit”
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2021, at 11:38 AM, sronan at ronan-online.com wrote:
>
>  So you are claiming that ARIN has jurisdiction over DoD IP space?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:13 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>  Sronan -
>
> I’d suggest asking rather than making assertions when it comes to ARIN, as
> this will avoid propagating existing misinformation in the community.
>
> Many US government agencies, including the US Department of Defense, have
> signed registration services agreements with ARIN.
>
> From https://account.arin.net/public/member-list -
>
> United States Department of Defense (DoD)
>
> USDDD <https://search.arin.net/rdap?query=USDDD&searchFilter=entity>
>
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
> On 25 Apr 2021, at 8:54 AM, sronan at ronan-online.com wrote:
>
> Except these DoD blocks don’t fall under ARIM justification, as they
> predate ARIN. It is very likely that the DoD has never and will never sign
> any sort of ARIN agreement.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 25, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> ARIN rules require every IP space holder to publish accurate — and
> effective —  Admin, Tech, and Abuse POCs. The DOD hasn’t done this, as I
> pointed out, and as you can test for yourself. Your expectation that the
> DOD will “generally comply with all of the expected norms” is sorely naive,
> and already disproven.
>
> As far as “why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your
> arbitrary standards”, you seem to forget that in the U.S., the government
> is accountable to the People. Where a private company may not have to
> explain its purposes, the government most certainly does in the private
> sector. With these IP spaces being thrust into the civilian realm, yes,
> they owe the citizenry an explanation of their actions, just as they would
> if they had started mounting missile launchers on highway overpasses. It’s
> a direct militarization of a civilian utility.
>
> Keep in mind that the U.S. Government — under all administrations — has
> shown that it will abuse every technical advantage it can, as long as it
> can do so in secret. Perhaps you’ve forgotten James Clapper, the former
> director of national intelligence, who falsely testified to Congress that
> the government does “not wittingly” collect the telephone records of
> millions of Americans. And he was just the tip of the iceberg. Before
> Clapper under Obama there was the Bush administration’s Stellar Wind"
> warrantless surveillance program. The list of government abuse of civilian
> resources is colossal .
>
> Fighting against that isn’t political. It’s patriotic.
>
> -mel
>
> On Apr 25, 2021, at 12:02 AM, Mark Foster <blakjak at blakjak.net> wrote:
>
> 
>
> On 25/04/2021 3:24 am, Mel Beckman 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
>
>
> Why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your arbitrary
> standards, what they intend to do with their IP address ranges?
>
> Failure to advertise the IP address space to the Internet (until now,
> perhaps) doesn't make the address space any less legitimate, and though I'd
> expect the DoD to generally comply with all of the expected norms around
> BGP arrangements and published whois details, at the end of the day, they
> can nominate who should originate it from their AS and as long as we can
> see who owns it.... it's just not our business.
>
> Any organisation who's used DoD space in a way that's likely to conflict
> with, well, the DoD, gambled and lost.
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210425/d59071e7/attachment.html>