On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Michel Py wrote:

Chris,

...

Christopher L. Morrow wrote: 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?

Yep.

...

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.

I'm not buying into this "avoid paperwork" thing. I can't speak for RIPE, APNIC or LACNIC, but in the ARIN region I have requested ASNs both for myself and helped customers request theirs and it's not that big of a deal.

Note that I didn't say it was a 'good' reason, just a reason... that or 'status' to have an ASN below number N (like say 10,000??) not that it matters to the routing system WHAT your ASN might be, just that one exists...

There is no real money incentive either: if one is setting up a real ISP, a one-time $500 fee is a) part of the cost of doing business and b) well worth the money compared to be labeled as a hijacker.

indeed... some people are shortsighted perhaps? Again, I don't understand the mentality so I can't argue for it...

Save for network engineers that have snagged an ASN from a merge and recycled it for their home network or pet project (there are none on this list, of course), would you mind giving some specifics about 'good guys' that have hijacked an ASN?