Re: Am I the only one who thinks this is disconcerting?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

It can’t be legacy space, there is no such thing in IPv6.

Legacy status only refers to IPv4 blocks that were issued by the predecessors to the current registry system and have 
not yet been placed under RIR contract.

Owen


> On Nov 13, 2023, at 12:57, Matt Corallo <nanog () as397444 net> wrote:
>
> I'd be very curious to see a lawsuit over an IP hijack that isn't interfering with the operation of any of Cogent's 
> services and is restoring service to HE's customers. Doubly so if they prepend aggressively to avoid it being a 
> preferred path (Cogent currently announces a /48 for the C root server, and I assume there's ~nothing else in that 
> block, but dunno).
>
> IANAL and really have no idea what the basis for that would be? I guess if its legacy space you might argue its 
> property and theft?
>
> Matt
>
> On 11/13/23 12:38 PM, Ryan Hamel wrote:
> > Matt,
> > Why would HE hijack Cogent's IP space? That would end in a lawsuit and potentially even more de-peering between them.
> > Ryan Hamel
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org> on behalf of Matt Corallo <nanog () as397444 net>
> > *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2023 11:32 AM
> > *To:* Bryan Fields <Bryan () bryanfields net>; nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>
> > *Subject:* Re: Am I the only one who thinks this is disconcerting?
> > Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
> > On 11/8/23 2:23 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> > > On 11/8/23 2:25 PM, owen () Delong com wrote:
> > > > Seems irresponsible to me that a root-server (or other critical DNS provider) would engage in a
> > > > peering war to the exclusion of workable DNS.
> > >
> > > I've brought this up before and the root servers are not really an IANA function IIRC.  There's not
> > > much governance over them, other than what's on root-servers.org.  I think a case could be made that
> > > C is in violation of the polices on that page and RFC 7720 section 3.
> > >
> > > Basically none of the root servers want to change this and thus it's never going to change.  DNS
> > > will fail and select another to talk to, and things will still work.
> > At what point does HE just host a second C root and announce the same IPv6s? Might irritate Cogent,
> > but its not more "bad" than Cogent failing to uphold the requirements for running a root server.
> > Matt