North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: How to prove 192.5.5.0/24 is authorized?
Good judgement should prevail. Thats the problem when you start calling for a bureaucratic solution. Bureucrats read from manuals and are inflexible. We have two blocks that had outdated information on them that took 3 years of haggling with ARIN to fix. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Vixie" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 13:38 Subject: Re: How to prove 192.5.5.0/24 is authorized? > > > I know I'm going to regret this, and I'm not debating that this particular > > network block was hijacked, but I do have a couple of questions. > > i think these are reasonable questions and the answers may be instructive. > > > Why was the network for F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET (192.5.5.241) registered in 1984 > > it was an old DEC block, used to contain TOPS20.DEC.COM i think. in the old > days, transferring network ownership just required consent by both parties. > since i represented both parties, well, you get the idea. > > > but the domain for ISC.ORG not registered until 1994? > > because it took a year after me leaving DEC (in 1993) to get ISC organized. > > > Why does the city and state for the ISC.ORG domain registration show up > > as "null?" > > > > Registrant: > > Internet Software Consortium (ISC2-DOM) > > 950 Charter Street > > null > > US > > > > Domain Name: ISC.ORG > > because when networksolutions folded, spindled, and mutilated SRI's whois > data for the Nth time, there was information lost (and gained for that > matter). i am gradually sorting it all out but it's Really Hard now, not > like the old e-mail template days. > > > According to the California Secretary of State web portal, the Internet > > Software Consortium filed their corporate papers on December 17, 1997. > > well so without knowing what city to look in, you have no way to know what > ficticious name statements or business licenses were issued earlier than > the state's incorporation goo. (i was only an egg in those days.) > > > So we have a 1997 corporation with a 1994 domain name using a 1984 > > network. Is this proof of evil intent? Should all ISPs immediately > > cease routing the network block for F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET because of > > questionable registration records? > > i hope not, since i think the questionability has some answerability. > (in other words, i hope y'all judge by merit not by rule.) > > > If Paul Vixie showed up on my doorstep tomorrow, and asked me to route > > 192.5.5.0; what proof should I accept from him (or anyone) to demostrate > > beyond a reasonable doubt he has the authority to route a particular > > network? > > in my case, answerability and continuity. but in the general case, i dunno. > -- > Paul Vixie > >
|