DoD IP Space

Wed Jan 20 18:32:24 UTC 2021

Brandon - 

	Agreed – the key phrase being "within a more limited scope” …

/John

> On 20 Jan 2021, at 1:26 PM, Brandon Martin <lists.nanog at monmotha.net> wrote:
> 
> On 1/20/21 12:52 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> 
>> <chuckle>  While route hijacking isn't necessarily an ARIN issue, I will note that several US law enforcement agencies (FBI & NCIS Cybercrime units) are quite interested in such events and do investigate them looking for criminal activity.   
>> 
>> (See https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG77/2108/20191028_Elverson_Your_As_Is_v1.pdf for details.) 
>> 
> 
> I think the difference is semantic but a very important one nonetheless.
> 
> Announcing a netblock that isn't yours and that you don't have authorization to use to others under the same terms and assumptions as you announce those to which you do hold legitimate rights or otherwise purporting to be a legitimate user of them on what we know as the "public Internet", that is the Internet where numbers are managed by IANA and the relevant RIRs is a "big deal".
> 
> Using numbers in a manner contrary to how they are assigned on the "public Internet" within a more limited scope where everybody agrees that the use of such numbers may be contrary to IANA and relevant RIR assignments is more along the lines of "you operate your network however you want".
> 
> Other things would fall under the same purview.  For example "alternate root" DNS hierarchies with extra TLDs or even TLDs used in contrast to ICANN recommendations would have similar considerations.
> -- 
> Brandon Martin