"proven-malicious IP space owner"
The DoD? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mel Beckman" <m...@beckman.org> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org, "John Curran" <jcur...@arin.net> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:37:42 AM Subject: Re: DoD IP Space I will not permit traffic into my network whose proven-malicious IP space owner is devious about its purpose. You can, if you want. -mel On Apr 24, 2021, at 8:28 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: <blockquote> Huh? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mel Beckman" <m...@beckman.org> To: "John Curran" <jcur...@arin.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:24:45 AM Subject: Re: DoD IP Space This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. I’m going to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and detailed — purpose can be known. The secret places of our government have proven themselves untrustworthy in the protection of citizens’ data and networks. They tend to think they know “what’s good for” us. -mel <blockquote> On Apr 24, 2021, at 8:05 AM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: </blockquote> <blockquote> As noted - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-address-mystery/#click=https://t.co/mVh26yBq9G FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers <blockquote> On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:35 AM, John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> wrote: </blockquote> <blockquote> Tom – Most definitely: lack of routing history is not at all a reliable indicator of the potential for valid routing of a given IPv4 block in the future, so best practice suggest that allocated address space should not be blocked by others without specific cause. Doing otherwise opens one up to unexpected surprises when issued space suddenly becomes more active in routing and is yet is inexplicably unreachable for some destinations. /John <blockquote> On Nov 5, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: </blockquote> <blockquote> Using the generally accepted definition of a bogon ( RFC 1918 / 5735 / 6598 + netblock not allocated by an RiR ), 22/8 is not a bogon and shouldn't be treated as one. The DoD does not announce it to the DFZ, as is their choice, but nothing says they may not change that position tomorrow. There are plenty of subnets out there that are properly allocated by an RiR, but the assignees do not send them to the DFZ because of $reasons. In my opinion, creating bogon lists that include allocated but not advertised prefixes is poor practice that is likely to end up biting an operator at one point or another. On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:45 AM Töma Gavrichenkov < xima...@gmail.com > wrote: <blockquote> Peace, On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 4:55 PM David Conrad < d...@virtualized.org > wrote: > On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > > wrote: >> This thread got me to wondering, is there any >> legitimate reason to see 22/8 on the public >> Internet? Or would it be okay to treat 22/8 >> like a Bogon and drop it at the network edge? > > Given the transfer market for IPv4 addresses, > the spot price for IPv4 addresses, and the need > of even governments to find “free” (as in > unconstrained) money, I’d think treating any > legacy /8 as a bogon would not be prudent. It has been said before in this thread that the DoD actively uses this network internally. I believe if the DoD were to cut costs, they would be able to do it much more effectively in many other areas, and their IPv4 networks would be about the last thing they would think of (along with switching off ACs Bernard Ebbers-style). With that in mind, treating the DoD networks as bogons now makes total sense to me. -- Töma </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
