nanog mailing list archives
Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:43:26 -0800
On 2/1/12 1:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <20120201201012.GE10680 () hiwaay net>, Chris Adams writes:Once upon a time, George Bonser <gbonser () seven com> said:Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 MainStreet, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the lease so I moved to a building up the block but put the 100 Main Street address on my new locati on and continued to use that address for my business. That's covered under trespassing laws.Or let's say I operated a TV station on channel 37 that was allocated to you but you terminate my operating contract. So I lease/erect a new transmitte r and continue broadcasting on channel 37. That's covered under FCC regulations on use of public spectrum. AFAIK there's no law covering the use of what party X considers their 32 bit numbers (assigned by party A) by party Y.If you present a false letter of authority you are committing fraud. If you continue to use address after the lease is up it is trespass / theft / breach of contract. I'm sure there are lots more laws that can apply. Counterfieting, wire fraud. Breaches of various Telecommunication Acts, etc. You might have juristictional issues. In the case of the Internet we have a authority for handing out numbers for use on the Internet (IANA). Courts all over the world do recognise that authority directly or indirectly by recognising the RIRs. There are enough analogs in common law to almost everything that happens on the Internet for there to no be the need for specific "Internet" laws. It's just that having a "Internet" law makes it easier to prosecute.
Phoenix NAP colluding to hijack address space and then balking when it was brought to their attention is a perfect example someone could use to say why "we" need to be regulated. And I'm sure it will eventually happen again with different players. Either we all play nice and self-regulate or someone else will start doing it for us, and probably not in a way we'll be happy with but have to learn to live with. ~Seth
Current thread:
- RE: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks), (continued)
- RE: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) George Bonser (Feb 01)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Blake Dunlap (Feb 01)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Ray Soucy (Feb 02)
- RE: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Nathan Eisenberg (Feb 02)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Eric Brunner-Williams (Feb 02)
- RE: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) George Bonser (Feb 02)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Jimmy Hess (Feb 02)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Jared Mauch (Feb 01)
- RE: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) George Bonser (Feb 01)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Mark Andrews (Feb 01)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Seth Mattinen (Feb 01)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Jimmy Hess (Feb 01)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Justin M. Streiner (Feb 01)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) goemon (Feb 02)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Dave Pooser (Feb 02)
- Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks) Justin M. Streiner (Feb 03)