[58971] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Ettiquette and rules regarding Hijacked ASN's or IP space?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Mon Jun 9 12:51:40 2003
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:49:51 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <chris@UU.NET>
To: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F86B@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> Chris,
>
> > Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > So, for an example, if I steal ASN 8143 (already stolen so its
> > mute) and I'm 'a good guy', all I want to do is run a network
> > no spam/abuse eminates from it,
>
> Question: if you are a 'good guy', why didn't you request your own legit
> ASN in the first place? It's less work than finding one to hijack and
> hijack it. And probably cheaper too: $500 does not pay for much of my or
> your time.
excellent point :) the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' was just
non-abuser/abuser. Certianly ARIN's requirements for ASN ownership are
simple enough, be multihomed and have a 'unique' routing policy. If you
need an ASN likely you are already multihomed and have a 'unique' routing
policy, eh?
>
>
> > I am not advocating one or the other, and to me the rules should
> > apply to both groups (all theives treated equally)... I'm just
> > curious as to the general thought on this subject.
>
> Without taking sides, does the first group really exist?
>
If you fuzz over the 'bad'/'good' beyond 'abuser'/'non-abuser' then
perhaps there isn't a distinction. Perhaps clarification: Someone that
sets up an ISP and hijacks ASN/ip-blocks specifically to abuse versus
someone who hijacked an ASN to avoid paperwork.
The distinction isn't necessarily for any real purpose, except as a
talking point. I've seen both groups get discussed, and only the 'abusing'
group seems to get hounded... or atleast thats what I've seen.
