Brandon -
Agreed – the key phrase being "within a more limited scope” …
/John
> On 20 Jan 2021, at 1:26 PM, Brandon Martin <[email protected]> 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
