Is there an established method for reporting/getting removed a company with 100% false peeringdb entries?

Tue Mar 9 01:16:19 UTC 2021

That could be Justin, based on the timeline from domain registration to
ARIN Object Creation ( Network and Abuse ) to PeeringDB Contact Update.
That doesn't explain the recent update to Public Peering Info on
2021-03-07T20:35:22 months after the ASN stopped routing any IP space.

The domain name associated with Manhattan Networks Corporation was created
on June 2nd, on the same day it was updated, the operator created multiple
ARIN objects:

Domain Name: manhattannetworksco.com
Updated Date: 2020-06-04T05:21:24Z
Creation Date: 2020-06-02T13:05:12Z

NETWO9241-ARIN - Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:44:24 GMT (Thu Jun 04 2020 local time)
ABUSE7921-ARIN - Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:50:50 GMT (Thu Jun 04 2020 local time)

The PeeringDB contact information entry was updated over an hour later.
https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/18894
Contact Info Updated 2020-06-04T16:11:24Z
Peering Facility Info Updated 2020-06-17T10:37:57Z
Last Updated 2020-07-01T14:22:01Z
Public Peering Info Updated 2021-03-07T20:35:22

On Jun 11th they created MNC-415
Registration - Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:53:51 GMT (Thu Jun 11 2020 local time)
Last Changed - Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:39:38 GMT (Wed Jun 17 2020 local time)
Comments - PDB: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/23440

On Jun 16th days later, the ASN was registered with ARIN.
Source Registry ARIN
Number 18894
Name MANHATTAN-US
Handle AS18894
Registration - Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:02:32 GMT (Tue Jun 16 2020 local time)
Last Changed - Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:02:32 GMT (Tue Jun 16 2020 local time)

Activity wise, the IP space they were routing were leased from Cogent?
Jul 17th - November 20th: announcing Cogent prefix 154.13.160.0/24
Aug 12th - Oct 6th: announcing Cogent prefix 154.13.161.0/24

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:23 PM Justin Wilson (Lists) <lists at mtin.net> wrote:

> I see from peering db:  2020-07-01T14:22:01Z
> According to the bg.he.net link
> AS18894 has not been visible in the global routing table since November
> 28, 2020
> The information displayed is from that time.
>
>
> Are they causing you or someone issues Eric? Maybe they went out of
> business? Many businesses don’t worry about peering db entries. Looks like
> the website has been under constructions since 2020.
>
> Sounds to me like they made a splash, and faltered.
>
>
> Justin Wilson
> j2sw at mtin.net
>
> —
> https://j2sw.com - All things jsw (AS209109)
> https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog
>
> > On Mar 4, 2021, at 7:14 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > First, take a look at this:
> >
> > https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/18894
> >
> >
> > Now look at these (or use your own BGP table analysis tools):
> >
> > https://bgp.he.net/AS18894
> >
> > https://stat.ripe.net/18894
> >
> > The claimed prefixes announced, traffic levels and POPs appear to have
> no correlation with reality in global v4/v6 BGP tables.
> >
> > It is also noteworthy that I have inquired with a number of persons I
> know who are active in network engineering in NYC, and nobody has ever
> encountered this company.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210308/aa92fb2c/attachment.html>