[139257] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (rr)
Thu Mar 31 16:25:32 2011
In-Reply-To: <46473.1301599971@tristatelogic.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:24:47 -0700
From: rr <rooknee@gmail.com>
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hmm, thought it was a NANOG prerequisite to be able to do a google
search. Should be pretty easy to find this info with that tool in your
handbag.
With the above tool I've got your phone # and would be happy to call
you if you'd like clarification on our process.
Please just reply to me off-list.
Randy
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
<rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>
> In message <AANLkTikMqBx=3DCU5AuTr7addyn7U7wbeOWw2qA9wDZNhC@mail.gmail.co=
m>,
> rr <rooknee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For the record, Integra Telecom did have LOA for said netblock.
>>Needless to say LOA was forged on company letterhead with appropriate
>>signatures. Once brought to our attention we attempted to contact
>>customer to no avail, netblock has been removed until they prove
>>otherwise.
>>
>>Randy Rooney
>
>
> Mr. Rooney,
>
> Since you have been kind enough to drop by, you know, to help clarify wha=
t
> went on here, I wonder if you would mind very much just providing a coupl=
e
> of small additional clarifications.
>
> First, could you tell me what job title you hold at Integra Telecom pleas=
e?
> (I wouldn't even ask, but you are apparently posting from a gmail account=
,
> and that always makes me a bit... well... leary.)
>
> Second, because I am actually an ignorant son-of-a-bitch (despite any
> possible appearances to the contrary), I wonder if, just for my personal
> edification, you could tell me exactly what "LOA" stands for in this cont=
ext.
> (Yes, I really don't know, but would like to.)
>
> Thirdly, I'd very much like to know if your company is in the habit of
> providing services (e.g. transit, routing) to other parties at no charge,
> and for extended periods of time
>
> Lastly, assuming that your company is NOT in the habit of providing servi=
ces
> (e.g. routing, transit) to other parties at no charge, then I think that =
I
> can speak for many here when I say that I would really appreciate it if y=
ou
> could tell me/us whose name was on the check that was used to pay for the
> services that your company apparently did provide to the 159.223.0.0/16 I=
P
> block, apparently for a period in excess of three months.
>
> If in fact the other party involved in this incident deceived and defraud=
ed
> you in some way, then I hardly think that this information, i.e. the name
> on the check that paid for all this, is something that Integra has any
> special obligation to keep secret. =A0Even if there ever had been any suc=
h
> obligation, leagl, ethical, or otherwise, I do believe that the other
> party involved has now nullified any such obligation by their very act
> of comitting a rather outrageous and damaging fraud upon your company.
>
> I look forward to your response.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
