nanog mailing list archives
Re: Hijacked Network Ranges
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:49:49 +0800
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:10:32 PM George Bonser wrote:
Customer relationship with Kelvin's firm terminated and they contracted for service elsewhere but are apparently attempting to maintain the use of the address allocation(s) they received from Kelvin's firm. They apparently did this by misrepresenting the fact that they were entitled to use that address space.
We've been in such situations without customers requesting us either to: a) Block certain addresses across their transit links in order to mitigate DoS attacks. b) Announce address space which does not necessarily belong to them, even though they aren't being nefarious. In either case, a quick check of the RIR WHOIS database to qualify consistency in information does not hurt. Yes, WHOIS records aren't always the most up-to-date, but it's a fairly good representation of the truth most of the time, especially since 'inetnum' objects tend to be managed by the RIR's themselves, last time I checked. This is quickly making the case for RPKI. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges, (continued)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges Mark Tinka (Feb 05)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges Christopher Morrow (Feb 05)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges Mark Tinka (Feb 06)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 06)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges Alex Band (Feb 06)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges Mark Tinka (Feb 06)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges goemon (Feb 05)
- RE: Hijacked Network Ranges George Bonser (Feb 05)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges Mark Tinka (Feb 05)
- Re: Hijacked Network Ranges Michael Hallgren (Feb 05)