Re: DoD IP Space

[John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>]

Brandon - 

        Agreed – the key phrase being "within a more limited scope” …

/John

> On 20 Jan 2021, at 1:26 PM, Brandon Martin <lists.nanog () monmotha net> wrote:
>
> On 1/20/21 12:52 PM, John Curran wrote:
> > <chuckle>  While route hijacking isn't necessarily an ARIN issue, I will note that several US law enforcement 
> > agencies (FBI & NCIS Cybercrime units) are quite interested in such events and do investigate them looking for 
> > criminal activity.   
> >
> > (See https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG77/2108/20191028_Elverson_Your_As_Is_v1.pdf for details.) 
>
> I think the difference is semantic but a very important one nonetheless.
>
> Announcing a netblock that isn't yours and that you don't have authorization to use to others under the same terms 
> and assumptions as you announce those to which you do hold legitimate rights or otherwise purporting to be a 
> legitimate user of them on what we know as the "public Internet", that is the Internet where numbers are managed by 
> IANA and the relevant RIRs is a "big deal".
>
> Using numbers in a manner contrary to how they are assigned on the "public Internet" within a more limited scope 
> where everybody agrees that the use of such numbers may be contrary to IANA and relevant RIR assignments is more 
> along the lines of "you operate your network however you want".
>
> Other things would fall under the same purview.  For example "alternate root" DNS hierarchies with extra TLDs or even 
> TLDs used in contrast to ICANN recommendations would have similar considerations.
> -- 
> Brandon Martin