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.