On 11/9/14, 8:59 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
>
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 11:48:36AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> P.S.  I'm still a bit befuddled by what happened in this case.
>> Would it be a fair characterization to say that what AS201640 has
>> done in this case is to exploit a kind of loophole which is
>> uniquely present only when the hijacker/squatter AS is registered
>> in one RiR and the IP blocks that are being hijacked/squatted are
>> registered in a different RiR?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Also, could this scenario have been replicated if the origin AS had
>> been registered in/by ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, or AFRINIC, rather than
>> RIPE?
>
> I'm not sure how the access control in other regions' IRR DBs work -
> but at least ARIN's database is based on RIPE code, so "it might
> be".
>

Both APNIC and AFRINIC ensure the address range and AS number are within
theirrespective resource ranges before a route object can be registered;
see [1] and [2].In these two regions it is not possible to register
routes for which eitherprefix or origin AS has been issued by another RIR.

The ARIN routing registry on the other hand does not enforce authorization
against inetnum or inet6num objects [3]. As a result rr.arin.net also hosts
routeobjects which relate to address space allocated by the RIPE NCC.
And the origin ASlisted with those routes doesn't have to be the same
as the one recored in theRIPE routing registry. For example:


    $ whois  -h rr.arin.net 212.100.0.0/19
    route:          212.100.0.0/19
    descr:          VeriSign Customer Route
    origin:         AS26415
    mnt-by:         MNT-VIO-2
    source:         ARIN # Filtered

vs.

    $ whois  -h whois.ripe.net 212.100.0.0/19
    inetnum:        212.100.0.0 - 212.100.31.255
    descr:          mipex.net
    org:            ORG-mA19-RIPE
    netname:        EU-MIPEX-981002
    country:        EU
    admin-c:        DH815-RIPE
    admin-c:        PJB-RIPE
    tech-c:         PJB-RIPE
    tech-c:         AJ686-RIPE
    status:         ALLOCATED PA
    mnt-by:         RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
    mnt-lower:      UKPO-RIPE-MNT
    mnt-routes:     UKPO-RIPE-MNT
    source:         RIPE # Filtered

    organisation:   ORG-mA19-RIPE
    org-name:       mipex.net
    org-type:       LIR
    phone:          +441633814000
    fax-no:         +441633814514
    admin-c:        AJ686-RIPE
    admin-c:        MDE15-RIPE
    admin-c:        PJB-RIPE
    mnt-ref:        UKPO-RIPE-MNT
    mnt-ref:        RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
    mnt-by:         RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
    source:         RIPE # Filtered
    abuse-c:        AR15071-RIPE
    address:        The Patent Office
    address:        Concept House
    address:        Cardiff Road
    address:        NP10 8QQ Newport
    address:        UNITED KINGDOM

    [...]

    % Information related to '212.100.0.0/19AS9011'

    route:          212.100.0.0/19
    descr:          UK Patents Office
    origin:         AS9011
    mnt-by:         UKPO-RIPE-MNT
    source:         RIPE # Filtered


I can only assume that from a local (VeriSign's) perspective the entry in
the ARINrouting registry makes sense, but it does confuse applications
and users whoon a global scale try to deduce a route's authorized origin
from routingregistry entries.

-- Rene


[1] https://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic-provides/routing-registry
[2] http://afrinic.net/en/services/afrinic-irr
[3] https://www.arin.net/resources/routing/



Reply via email to