Re: DoD IP Space

[sronan () ronan-online com]

So you are claiming that ARIN has jurisdiction over DoD IP space?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:13 AM, John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote:
>
>  Sronan - 
>
> I’d suggest asking rather than making assertions when it comes to ARIN, as this will avoid propagating existing 
> misinformation in the community. 
>
> Many US government agencies, including the US Department of Defense, have signed registration services agreements 
> with ARIN.
>
> From https://account.arin.net/public/member-list - 
>
> United States Department of Defense (DoD)   USDDD
>
> Thanks! 
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
> > > On 25 Apr 2021, at 8:54 AM, sronan () ronan-online com wrote:
> > >
> > > Except these DoD blocks don’t fall under ARIM justification, as they predate ARIN. It is very likely that the DoD 
> > > has never and will never sign any sort of ARIN agreement.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Apr 25, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > ARIN rules require every IP space holder to publish accurate — and effective —  Admin, Tech, and Abuse POCs. The 
> > > DOD hasn’t done this, as I pointed out, and as you can test for yourself. Your expectation that the DOD will 
> > > “generally comply with all of the expected norms” is sorely naive, and already disproven.
> > >
> > > As far as “why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your arbitrary standards”, you seem to forget that in 
> > > the U.S., the government is accountable to the People. Where a private company may not have to explain its 
> > > purposes, the government most certainly does in the private sector. With these IP spaces being thrust into the 
> > > civilian realm, yes, they owe the citizenry an explanation of their actions, just as they would if they had started 
> > > mounting missile launchers on highway overpasses. It’s a direct militarization of a civilian utility. 
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that the U.S. Government — under all administrations — has shown that it will abuse every technical 
> > > advantage it can, as long as it can do so in secret. Perhaps you’ve forgotten James Clapper, the former director of 
> > > national intelligence, who falsely testified to Congress that the government does “not wittingly” collect the 
> > > telephone records of millions of Americans. And he was just the tip of the iceberg. Before Clapper under Obama 
> > > there was the Bush administration’s Stellar Wind" warrantless surveillance program. The list of government abuse of 
> > > civilian resources is colossal . 
> > >
> > > Fighting against that isn’t political. It’s patriotic.
> > >
> > > -mel 
> > >
> > > > On Apr 25, 2021, at 12:02 AM, Mark Foster <blakjak () blakjak net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > > > On 25/04/2021 3:24 am, Mel Beckman wrote:
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > Why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your arbitrary standards, what they intend to do with their IP 
> > > > address ranges?
> > > >
> > > > Failure to advertise the IP address space to the Internet (until now, perhaps) doesn't make the address space any 
> > > > less legitimate, and though I'd expect the DoD to generally comply with all of the expected norms around BGP 
> > > > arrangements and published whois details, at the end of the day, they can nominate who should originate it from 
> > > > their AS and as long as we can see who owns it.... it's just not our business.
> > > >
> > > > Any organisation who's used DoD space in a way that's likely to conflict with, well, the DoD, gambled and lost.
> > > >
> > > > Mark.