The fact that the port authority building is also an office building with multiple other tenants?
Whois contacts on a defunct domain belonging to an Australian government port authority agency that’s since been renamed don’t appear to support your hypothesis that this is another tenant of a government owned building.
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2019 5:30 AM
To: Ronald F. Guilmette
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent & FDCServers: Knowingly aiding and abetting fraud and theft?
Ron,
I’m just saying that I randomly checked one fact and it doesn’t meet the level of positive certainty that you asserted. It’s thus reasonable to ask you to double check your research all around. I’m not willing to be your unpaid copy editor, so let me know when
you’ve done a double check and I’ll be willing to invest time in your story again.
-mel via cell
> On Sep 6, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>
> In message <23540.1567802066@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, I wrote:
>
>> Is anyone disputing that 168.198.0.0/16 belongs to the Australian
>> national government, or that AS174, Cogent was, until quite recently,
>> routing that down to their pals at FDCServers who then were routing
>> it down to their customer, Elad Cohen? If so, I ask that people look
>> up this network in the RIPE Routing history tool and ALSO that folks
>> have a look at, and explain, the following traceroute from August 23:
>>
>> https://pastebin.com/raw/2nJtbwjs
>
> My apologies. In my furious haste, I botched that one URL. Here is the
> correct file conatining my traceroute to 168.198.12.242 as performed by
> me on August 23rd:
>
> https://pastebin.com/raw/TrLbGZuW
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg