[34641] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using unallocated address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hank Nussbacher)
Thu Feb 15 12:38:58 2001
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010215191720.00ad7850@max.ibm.net.il>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:31:52 +0200
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>
In-Reply-To: <20010213065655.23346.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 22:56 12/02/01 -0800, Sean Donelan wrote:
>On Mon, 12 February 2001, John Fraizer wrote:
> > Any time a network is caught announcing non-allocated address space, the
> > registry should bill them accordingly. If they refuse to pay, the
> > registry should yank their ASN. That would be strong encouragement to do
> > the right thing.
>
>Other than making it difficult for people to figure out WHOIS using that
>ASN, "yanking" an ASN's registration has little practical effect. You
>can use an un-allocated ASN almost as easily as using an un-allocated
>address block.
The registries, ARIN/RIPE/APNIC should announce the offending block
themselves and shunt it to null0. If the offender announces a /18 then
they should announce theirs as 2x/19s and thereby override the bogus /18.
I don't think the problem is so huge that a few dozen extra prefixes
announced by the registries will bloat and kill the routing table size. If
the registries don't do this, these cybersquatters will come thru later on
and demand to keep the IP address space they have grabbed just as the .sex,
and .web and all the other alternate DNSers have done.
-Hank
