Re: DoD IP Space

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

"proven-malicious IP space owner" 


The DoD? 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mel Beckman" <mel () beckman org> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
Cc: nanog () nanog org, "John Curran" <jcurran () arin net> 
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:37:42 AM 
Subject: Re: DoD IP Space 

I will not permit traffic into my network whose proven-malicious IP space owner is devious about its purpose. You can, 
if you want. 


-mel 



On Apr 24, 2021, at 8:28 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote: 




<blockquote>


Huh? 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mel Beckman" <mel () beckman org> 
To: "John Curran" <jcurran () arin net> 
Cc: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:24:45 AM 
Subject: Re: DoD IP Space 

This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at 
a minimum. I’m going to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and detailed — purpose can be known. 
The secret places of our government have proven themselves untrustworthy in the protection of citizens’ data and 
networks. They tend to think they know “what’s good for” us. 


-mel 


<blockquote>
On Apr 24, 2021, at 8:05 AM, John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote: 


</blockquote>

<blockquote>


As noted - 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-address-mystery/#click=https://t.co/mVh26yBq9G 


FYI, 
/John 


John Curran 
President and CEO 
American Registry for Internet Numbers 


<blockquote>
On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:35 AM, John Curran <jcurran () istaff org> wrote: 


</blockquote>

<blockquote>


Tom – 


Most definitely: lack of routing history is not at all a reliable indicator of the potential for valid routing of a 
given IPv4 block in the future, so best practice suggest that allocated address space should not be blocked by others 
without specific cause. 


Doing otherwise opens one up to unexpected surprises when issued space suddenly becomes more active in routing and is 
yet is inexplicably unreachable for some destinations. 


/John 


<blockquote>
On Nov 5, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote: 


</blockquote>

<blockquote>




Using the generally accepted definition of a bogon ( RFC 1918 / 5735 / 6598 + netblock not allocated by an RiR ), 22/8 
is not a bogon and shouldn't be treated as one. 



The DoD does not announce it to the DFZ, as is their choice, but nothing says they may not change that position 
tomorrow. There are plenty of subnets out there that are properly allocated by an RiR, but the assignees do not send 
them to the DFZ because of $reasons. 


In my opinion, creating bogon lists that include allocated but not advertised prefixes is poor practice that is likely 
to end up biting an operator at one point or another. 


On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:45 AM Töma Gavrichenkov < ximaera () gmail com > wrote: 

<blockquote>
Peace, 

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 4:55 PM David Conrad < drc () virtualized org > wrote: 
> On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG < nanog () nanog org > wrote: 
> > This thread got me to wondering, is there any 
> > legitimate reason to see 22/8 on the public 
> > Internet? Or would it be okay to treat 22/8 
> > like a Bogon and drop it at the network edge? 
>
> Given the transfer market for IPv4 addresses, 
> the spot price for IPv4 addresses, and the need 
> of even governments to find “free” (as in 
> unconstrained) money, I’d think treating any 
> legacy /8 as a bogon would not be prudent. 

It has been said before in this thread that the DoD actively uses this 
network internally. I believe if the DoD were to cut costs, they 
would be able to do it much more effectively in many other areas, and 
their IPv4 networks would be about the last thing they would think of 
(along with switching off ACs Bernard Ebbers-style). With that in 
mind, treating the DoD networks as bogons now makes total sense to me. 

-- 
Töma 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>


</blockquote>