[58122] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Who is announcing bogons?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@karoshi.com)
Thu May 1 12:22:42 2003
From: bmanning@karoshi.com
To: sean@donelan.com (Sean Donelan)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 09:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bmanning@karoshi.com, paul@vix.com (Paul Vixie), nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304292113020.27587-100000@clifden.donelan.com> from "Sean Donelan" at Apr 29, 2003 09:41:09 PM
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
> > > Looking at one log, the most persistant announcer of bogon space is
> > > AS 4554 (Bill Manning), Net 39.0.0.0/8.
> > >
> > > I don't know Mr. Manning's intentions, malicious or otherwise.
> >
> > as has been stated on this list several times over the past few years...
> >
> > net 39 was left in my care by my previous boss.
>
> The Cymru Team lists 39.0.0.0/8 as a bogon.
yes they do.
> Its a serious problem. Over the last two decades, records of
> address assignments have been lost. Yes, its just a 32-bit number (or
> 16-bit number or 128-bit number). A missing registry record doesn't
> cause a problem, unless someone starts blackholing routes or reusing
> addresses.
yup. in addition to the missing records, we have folks
who would like to re-write history by making changes to
registry records without even basic checking in with the
existing holders of the delegations.
> While I think many of the bogons are mistakes, and some are due to
> malicious activity; we need to recognize the limitations of our data
> sources. If people are going to start blackholing previously allocated
> address space, or sub-delegations, our data isn't that great. As the
> saying goes, you can't prove a negative. We can confirm a positive
> registration.
you are correct, within limits. confirm with whom and when?
--bill
