Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> > Lather rinse repeat with a better choice of address...
> >
> > 2001:550:3ee3:f329:102a3:2aff:fe23:1f69
> >
> > This is in the ARIN region...
>
> Actually it's not a valid address at all, because it also has a typo.
> one might assume with a typo that the most significant bits are probably
> correct but potentially compounding errors doesn't sound like a good idea.

Yes... Should have been 2001:550:3ee3:f329:02a3:2aff:fe23:1f69.

Not sure how the extra 1 got in there.

> > It's from within a particular ISP's /32.
> >
> > Has that ISP delegated some overlapping fraction to another ISP? If so, it's not in whois.
> > Have they delegated it to an end user? Again, if so, it's not in whois.
> >
> > Same for 2001:550:10:20:62a3:3eff:fe19:2909
> >
> > I don't honestly know if either of those prefixes is allocated or not, so maybe nothing's wrong
> > in this particular case, but if they have been delegated and not registered in whois, that's
> > a real problem when it comes time to get a search warrant if speed is of the essence.
>
> If you're asserting that cogent is not swiping their delegations then do
> so. they have certain obligations as an LIR under the policy under which
> resources were delegated to them. future prefix assignments  will
> clearly require that the demonstrate utilization much as they are
> required to in ipv4.

I'm making no assertion about cogent whatsoever. Since I don't know whether those
addresses I chose at random within the ARIN region happen to be delegated or not, I
have no ability to determine whether they should be registered as delegated or not.

I said this in the above paragraph you quoted.

I was attempting to demonstrate the potential problem, not point to an extant example
as I do not have an extant example handy, though I suspect such do actually exist.

Owen