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 We have two blocks that had outdated information on them that took 3 years of haggling with ARIN to fix.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" <vixie@vix.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu> 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