[143900] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Prefix hijacking by Michael Lindsay via Internap
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arturo Servin)
Sun Aug 21 09:49:25 2011
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0E1D65DC-E5AF-4B5E-937B-28268172CF93@virtualized.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:48:36 -0300
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
What I understand is that he is clamming that the registration =
of this prefix was hijacked from him.
But honestly I do not what the problem is. Any how, it won't be =
solved here.
Regards,
/as
=09
On 21 Aug 2011, at 02:25, David Conrad wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> If you are claiming right over these prefixes I suggest you to =
contact RIPE NCC.
>=20
> And that will do what exactly?
>=20
> Back when I worked at an RIR, a prefix was "misplaced". When I =
contacted the (country monopoly PTT) ISP and told them the prefix had =
been removed from APNIC's database and should not be routed. Their =
response was "We have a contract with the customer for connectivity. We =
do not have a contract with you." and I was encouraged to get the =
customer to voluntarily withdraw the prefix.
>=20
> If BGPSEC+RPKI were deployed, there might be something active the RIRs =
could do. However, this has its own implications regarding centralized =
control of the routing system (as discussed, ironically enough, in the =
RIPE region). And this is going to get much more 'interesting' as the =
IPv4 free pool exhausts and the market moves from black to grey or =
white. Fun times ahead.
>=20
> Regards,
> -drc
>=20
