Hmm, while we're at it, what relationship do you have with Erie Forge and Steel, other than squatting on some of their address space.
Perhaps 146.20.0.0/16 is another example of hijacked address space.
Perhaps you should learn the facts, before getting your stalk on and contributing to this off-topic witch hunt. Once upon a time, enterprises like Erie Forge were assigned class B's of IP space. As a technologically progressive organization, Erie seized the opportunity, and emerged as one of the first in the steel industry to have most of their terminals, servers, printers, and even casting equipment connected to the Internet. Over the years, technology and operational practices evolved. No longer does one need massive provider-independent space to connect to the Internet; for many small to medium sized businesses, a simple application proxy or NAT box and internal address space is adequate. Despite your baseless claims to the contrary, the Information Technology staff of Erie Forge and Steel is well aware, and approving, of the current usage of their IP space. What you consider "hijacking", they consider innovation, and an opportunity to give back to the Internet community that's allowed them to prosper over the years. Getting down to business, I have three larger concerns with the style and content of your posting. One, the NANOG AUP (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html) clearly states: "7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names and addresses, rather than aliases." With that in mind, I respectfully ask that Susan Harris and the NANOG moderators require that you come into compliance with their policy, and boot you off the list post-haste, should you fail to do so. I'm appalled that you would even begin to point out shortcomings in others, when you've neglected to follow such simple rules of decency yourself. Second, could you please do something about the high volume of spam originating from and/or referencing your network? You must be too clueless to take any action, or black hat spam heaven (if not a spammer yourself, for letting this go on under your watch), from the gist of the postings I've read. Kai Schlichting and the gentlemen on SPAM-L and NANAE will be able to cooberate these reports. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=RCN+spam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wg Third, can you explain to me the following: EnterAct EACT-ROUTERS-03 (NET-207-229-159-44-1) 207.229.159.44 - 207.229.159.51 EnterAct EACT-ROUTERS-02 (NET-207-229-159-20-1) 207.229.159.20 - 207.229.159.39 EnterAct EACT-VHOST-NT03 (NET-207-229-159-52-1) 207.229.159.52 - 207.229.159.255 EnterAct EACT-CUST-NERGE (NET-207-229-166-224-1) 207.229.166.224 - 207.229.166.239 EnterAct EACT-APM-TS01 (NET-216-80-19-0-1) 216.80.19.0 - 216.80.19.31 EnterAct EACT-APM-COLO01 (NET-216-80-19-32-1) 216.80.19.32 - 216.80.19.47 EnterAct EACT-APM-SERVERS01 (NET-216-80-19-48-1) 216.80.19.48 - 216.80.19.63 EnterAct EACT-CUST-EADSL (NET-216-80-31-88-1) 216.80.31.88 - 216.80.31.95 EnterAct EACT-CUST-DSL-01 (NET-216-80-0-0-2) 216.80.0.0 - 216.80.0.223 These prefixes belonging to "EnterAct" are advertised by RCN. Are they illlegal customer advertisements, or are you just too clueless to update their SWIP records in accordiance with the same ARIN policy you wish to see applied to others, now that RCN has acquired EnterAct? Perhaps we all should filter them now, and ask questions and carry out an investigation later? I hope Rob Thomas is taking note, I'm sure these are not only bogons, but violate some secret RFC (yeah dude, that's the ticket) documenting reversed IP space. Wait, that's not all. I see you have mail servers inside: OrgName: GweepCo Cooperative Network OrgID: GCN-1 Address: 15 Lee Street Suite 1 Address: Worcester MA, 01609 City: StateProv: PostalCode: Country: US NetRange: 204.145.148.0 - 204.145.148.255 CIDR: 204.145.148.0/24 NetName: GWEEP-NET NetHandle: NET-204-145-148-0-1 Parent: NET-204-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: SIDEHACK.SAT.GWEEP.NET NameServer: DNS.GWEEP.CA NameServer: SNMP.HEATHROWCABLE.NET Comment: RegDate: 1995-01-09 Updated: 2002-11-27 TechHandle: JZP-ARIN TechName: Provo, Joseph Z. TechPhone: +1-508-229-0037 TechEmail: jprovo-arin@rsuc.gweep.net But "GweepCo" (Is this even a real company? Can you provide any articles of organization and incorporation?) has a domain registration which lists as the address: GweepCo Cooperative Network (GWEEP-DOM) 35 William Street, Suite 3D null Domain Name: GWEEP.NET Administrative Contact: Petrarca, Andrew (AP200) android@GWEEP.NET GweepCo Cooperative Network 565 Quaker Lane, Unit 135 West Warwick, RI 02893 and Subdomain: gweep.ca Renewal-Date: 2004/05/02 Date-Approved: 2000/10/18 Date-Modified: 2003/03/12 Organization: Gweep Systems Description: Unix and Internet consulting. BC registration #15267493. Admin-Name: Brian Edmonds Admin-Title: Trouble Consultant Admin-Postal: 2907-198 Aquarius Mews Vancouver BC V6Z 2Y4 Canada Admin-Phone: +1 (604) 662-8304 Admin-Fax: Admin-Mailbox: brian@gweep.ca Tech-Name: Brian Edmonds Tech-Title: Trouble Consultant Tech-Postal: Gweep Systems 2907-198 Aquarius Mews Vancouver BC V6Z 2Y4 Canada Tech-Phone: +1 (604) 662-8304 Mass, Rhode Island, or Canada? Which will it be? Can you make up your mind please? Or get some IP space you can verify is yours. Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program: https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427
There are gweep.net peeps all over the East Coast, including Canada. If you don't understand what gweeps have done for the community you just haven't been invited to participate yet. FWIW, jzp is looking into the Enteract concerns listed below. -ren At 10:49 AM 5/4/2003 -0700, ddragon@hushmail.com wrote:
Hmm, while we're at it, what relationship do you have with Erie Forge and Steel, other than squatting on some of their address space.
Perhaps 146.20.0.0/16 is another example of hijacked address space.
Perhaps you should learn the facts, before getting your stalk on and
contributing to this off-topic witch hunt.
Once upon a time, enterprises like Erie Forge were assigned class B's
of IP space. As a technologically progressive organization, Erie seized the opportunity, and emerged as one of the first in the steel
industry to have most of their terminals, servers, printers, and even
casting equipment connected to the Internet.
Over the years, technology and operational practices evolved. No longer does one need massive provider-independent space to connect to
the Internet; for many small to medium sized businesses, a simple application proxy or NAT box and internal address space is adequate.
Despite your baseless claims to the contrary, the Information Technology staff of Erie Forge and Steel is well aware, and approving,
of the current usage of their IP space. What you consider "hijacking", they consider innovation, and an opportunity to give back
to the Internet community that's allowed them to prosper over the years.
Getting down to business, I have three larger concerns with the style
and content of your posting.
One, the NANOG AUP (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html) clearly states:
"7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names
and addresses, rather than aliases."
With that in mind, I respectfully ask that Susan Harris and the NANOG
moderators require that you come into compliance with their policy, and boot you off the list post-haste, should you fail to do so. I'm appalled that you would even begin to point out shortcomings in others, when you've neglected to follow such simple rules of decency
yourself.
Second, could you please do something about the high volume of spam originating from and/or referencing your network? You must be too clueless to take any action, or black hat spam heaven (if not a spammer yourself, for letting this go on under your watch), from the gist of the postings I've read. Kai Schlichting and the gentlemen on SPAM-L and NANAE will be able to cooberate these reports.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=RCN+spam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wg
Third, can you explain to me the following:
EnterAct EACT-ROUTERS-03 (NET-207-229-159-44-1) 207.229.159.44 - 207.229.159.51
EnterAct EACT-ROUTERS-02 (NET-207-229-159-20-1) 207.229.159.20 - 207.229.159.39
EnterAct EACT-VHOST-NT03 (NET-207-229-159-52-1) 207.229.159.52 - 207.229.159.255
EnterAct EACT-CUST-NERGE (NET-207-229-166-224-1) 207.229.166.224 - 207.229.166.239
EnterAct EACT-APM-TS01 (NET-216-80-19-0-1) 216.80.19.0 - 216.80.19.31
EnterAct EACT-APM-COLO01 (NET-216-80-19-32-1) 216.80.19.32 - 216.80.19.47
EnterAct EACT-APM-SERVERS01 (NET-216-80-19-48-1) 216.80.19.48 - 216.80.19.63
EnterAct EACT-CUST-EADSL (NET-216-80-31-88-1) 216.80.31.88 - 216.80.31.95
EnterAct EACT-CUST-DSL-01 (NET-216-80-0-0-2) 216.80.0.0 - 216.80.0.223
These prefixes belonging to "EnterAct" are advertised by RCN. Are they
illlegal customer advertisements, or are you just too clueless to update their SWIP records in accordiance with the same ARIN policy you wish to see applied to others, now that RCN has acquired EnterAct? Perhaps we all should filter them now, and ask questions and carry out an investigation later? I hope Rob Thomas is taking note, I'm sure these are not only bogons, but violate some secret RFC (yeah dude, that's the ticket) documenting reversed IP space.
Wait, that's not all. I see you have mail servers inside:
OrgName: GweepCo Cooperative Network OrgID: GCN-1 Address: 15 Lee Street Suite 1 Address: Worcester MA, 01609 City: StateProv: PostalCode: Country: US
NetRange: 204.145.148.0 - 204.145.148.255 CIDR: 204.145.148.0/24 NetName: GWEEP-NET NetHandle: NET-204-145-148-0-1 Parent: NET-204-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: SIDEHACK.SAT.GWEEP.NET NameServer: DNS.GWEEP.CA NameServer: SNMP.HEATHROWCABLE.NET Comment: RegDate: 1995-01-09 Updated: 2002-11-27
TechHandle: JZP-ARIN TechName: Provo, Joseph Z. TechPhone: +1-508-229-0037 TechEmail: jprovo-arin@rsuc.gweep.net
But "GweepCo" (Is this even a real company? Can you provide any articles of organization and incorporation?) has a domain registration which lists as the address:
GweepCo Cooperative Network (GWEEP-DOM) 35 William Street, Suite 3D null
Domain Name: GWEEP.NET
Administrative Contact: Petrarca, Andrew (AP200) android@GWEEP.NET GweepCo Cooperative Network 565 Quaker Lane, Unit 135 West Warwick, RI 02893
and
Subdomain: gweep.ca Renewal-Date: 2004/05/02 Date-Approved: 2000/10/18 Date-Modified: 2003/03/12 Organization: Gweep Systems Description: Unix and Internet consulting. BC registration #15267493. Admin-Name: Brian Edmonds Admin-Title: Trouble Consultant Admin-Postal: 2907-198 Aquarius Mews Vancouver BC V6Z 2Y4 Canada Admin-Phone: +1 (604) 662-8304 Admin-Fax: Admin-Mailbox: brian@gweep.ca Tech-Name: Brian Edmonds Tech-Title: Trouble Consultant Tech-Postal: Gweep Systems 2907-198 Aquarius Mews Vancouver BC V6Z 2Y4 Canada Tech-Phone: +1 (604) 662-8304
Mass, Rhode Island, or Canada? Which will it be? Can you make up your mind please? Or get some IP space you can verify is yours.
Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2
Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program: https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427
Yay! anonymous attacks coming out of the woodwork! Thanks for helping
solidify the procmail rule to plonk any hushmail posts to nanog. I'd
recommend others to do so.
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 10:49:40AM -0700, ddragon@hushmail.com wrote:
[snip random blathering]
> Getting down to business, I have three larger concerns with the style
> and content of your posting.
>
> One, the NANOG AUP (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html) clearly states:
> "7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names
> and addresses, rather than aliases."
>
> With that in mind, I respectfully ask that Susan Harris and the NANOG
> moderators require that you come into compliance with their policy,
Comply or hit the bricks yourself, coward.
> Second, could you please do something about the high volume of spam
> originating from and/or referencing your network? You must be too
[snip]
- direct connection between an individual hosts' poster and the network
you referece is 'specious' at best. Single-homed PI space tends to
not pollute the BGP tables with extraneous ASNs.
- It would require a complete cluebag to believe RCN has anything but
a sterling standing in handling network abuse. Their (acquired) abuse
staff continue to do a top-notch job handling items, and their
(aquired) network staff prevent spoofed garbage from coming out. Can
Mr Anonymous' network claim the same? Do you even run one?
> Third, can you explain to me the following:
Mr Anonymous should learn to chase UP the WHOIS referances as well as
DOWN. I'm not certain, but there might be organizational issues where
the name 'enteract' applies internally to different elements within
the organization.
> EnterAct EACT-ROUTERS-03 (NET-207-229-159-44-1) 207.229.159.44 - 207.229.159.51
> EnterAct EACT-ROUTERS-02 (NET-207-229-159-20-1) 207.229.159.20 - 207.229.159.39
> EnterAct EACT-VHOST-NT03 (NET-207-229-159-52-1) 207.229.159.52 - 207.229.159.255
> EnterAct EACT-CUST-NERGE (NET-207-229-166-224-1) 207.229.166.224 - 207.229.166.239
[snip]
...deaggregates not visible and gosh not returning ICMP - unused trash is
in the database? no way! Telco icbergs taking a long time to make course
corrections? unheard of!
> These prefixes belonging to "EnterAct" are advertised by RCN. Are they
> illlegal customer advertisements, or are you just too clueless to update
> their SWIP records in accordiance with the same ARIN policy you wish
> to see applied to others, now that RCN has acquired EnterAct? Perhaps
> we all should filter them now, and ask questions and carry out an
> investigation later?
Apples and oranges. I do challenge you to find an announced aggregate that
hasn't been cleaned up or updated.
> I hope Rob Thomas is taking note, I'm sure these are not only
> bogons, but violate some secret RFC (yeah dude, that's the ticket)
> documenting reversed IP space.
All the reverses I checked are in order. Perhaps you're so upset your
zombie network was shut down that you're making typoes?
[snip]
> But "GweepCo" (Is this even a real company? Can you provide any
> articles of organization and incorporation?)
Obviously "cooperative" "domain park" and "sending email" are items alien
to you? There is not now nor was there at the time of allocation any
requirement of incorporation for allocations. There is no lack of
announcement of the space; not allocated in the misty past and unused.
To the point of the [bogus] thread, there is no transfer from one
organization to another. Other than shooting rubber-tipped darts, what
is your point child?
[snip domain]
> Mass, Rhode Island, or Canada? Which will it be? Can you make up your
> mind please? Or get some IP space you can verify is yours.
See above; you have trouble discerning the difference between continually
used, functional, and trouble-free allocations and seemingly (in some cases
obviously) hijacked, spottily used, randomly deaggreagted, and trouble-SOME
allocations. Again, "domain park" and good operational practices of
multisite DNS servers appear alien to you.
The listed contact email addresses have never received any requests to
'check up on them'. If you need to investigate further, we can discuss at
Salt Lake or on the banks of the Charles in July. Mail direct for the
directions on the latter!
Cheers, and *plonk*,
Joe
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. <snip>
Despite your baseless claims to the contrary, the Information Technology staff of Erie Forge and Steel is well aware, and approving, of the current usage of their IP space. What you consider "hijacking", they consider innovation, and an opportunity to give back to the Internet community that's allowed them to prosper over the years.
If they are truly giving back to the community, they should refer to BCP4.
Getting down to business, I have three larger concerns with the style and content of your posting. One, the NANOG AUP (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html) clearly states: "7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names and addresses, rather than aliases."
This _is_ my real address. I certainly don't feel the need to use an anonymous mailer, unlike yourself. The rest of your message is merely reaching. If you can convince someone that GweepCo (or RCN, since you harped on about them for a while) has/is/will done/doing/do something wrong or unethical, be my guest. However, I think you'll probably have a tough time doing so, since many of the GweepCo folks are respected members of the networking/systems community (I won't presume that I'm included in said list of folks), and AfterBurner and the rest of the RCN abuse team is widely respected as one of the best in the industry. <snip>
participants (4)
-
bdragon＠gweep.net -
ddragon＠hushmail.com -
Joe Provo -
ren