![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 14:49:23 -0400
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
Current thread:
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK bdragon (May 03)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK Matt Levine (May 03)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK bdragon (May 03)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK bdragon (May 03)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK Matt Levine (May 03)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK Rob Thomas (May 03)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK Matt Levine (May 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK ddragon (May 04)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK ren (May 04)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK Joe Provo (May 04)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK bdragon (May 04)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK ddragon (May 04)
- RE: Class "B" IP BLOCK Dan Lockwood (May 04)
- RE: Class "B" IP BLOCK Rob Thomas (May 04)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK ddragon (May 06)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK Dave Israel (May 07)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK Chris Woodfield (May 07)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK Peter E. Fry (May 07)
- Re: Class "B" IP BLOCK David Lesher (May 07)