[130578] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New hijacking - Done via via good old-fashioned Identity Theft
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Oct 6 10:39:34 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CAC7B0A.1080208@adversary.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 07:34:20 -0700
To: Ben McGinnes <ben@adversary.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> On 7/10/10 12:08 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> so ... should domains associated with asn(s) and addr block allocations
>> be subject to some expiry policy other than "it goes into the drop pool
>> and one of {enom,pool,...} acquire it (and the associated non-traffic
>> assets) for any interested party at $50 per /24"?
>
> Interesting idea, but how do you apply it to ccTLD domains with widely
> varying policies. All it takes is whois records being legitimately
> updated to use domain contacts using a ccTLD domain to circumvent.
> Sounds like more of a stop-gap measure.
>
>
> Regards,
> Ben
>
>
Number resources are not and should not be associated with domain
resources at the policy level. This would make absolutely no sense
whatsoever.
Owen
