> On Oct 12, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> How exactly is it punishment that BGP needs an AS number?
It’s not. I was objecting to the implication that if someone announces a prefix
that has not been transferred to their ownership it is fraudulent or shady, and
as a consequence
On 10/11/19 07:16, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
This should not be just a “nitpick". AT&T announces our extremely legacy ARIN
allocation for us because we do not qualify to have an ASN, but I absolutely did not,
will not, and*have actively resisted attempts to* transfer the block to them. I would
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:16 AM Daniel Seagraves <
dseag...@humancapitaldev.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 2019, at 6:28 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
> wrote:
> >
> > I nitpick, but "never transferred the block" is not the same thing as
> > "never authorized Cogent to announce it”.
>
> This should not be
> On Oct 11, 2019, at 6:28 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> I nitpick, but "never transferred the block" is not the same thing as
> "never authorized Cogent to announce it”.
This should not be just a “nitpick". AT&T announces our extremely legacy ARIN
allocation for us because we do not quali
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 08:14:00PM +0900,
Masataka Ohta wrote
a message of 34 lines which said:
they said they have never transferred the block
So, RADB entry:
...
route: 146.51.0.0/16
origin: AS174
...
is confirmed to be registrat
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 08:14:00PM +0900,
Masataka Ohta wrote
a message of 34 lines which said:
> they said they have never transferred the block
> So, RADB entry:
...
> route: 146.51.0.0/16
> origin: AS174
...
> is confirmed to be registration fraud.
I nitpick, but "nev
As I wrote:
143.136.0.0/16
143.253.0.0/16
146.51.0.0/16
I tried to make contact myself with the legit owners of all of the above,
but found it to be quite difficult. The registered owner of the first
one appears to have gone into hiding on a remote island someplace.
Both relo
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
To me:
notify: tmiy...@gaijin.co.jp
merely suggest miyoko has some relationships with
gaijin (foreigners), which is partly why I guess:
www.ffei.co.uk
is the owner.
Masataka Ohta
In message <152f0dbc-f7af-2a78-c5a7-f2062effe...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> From whois information:
>
>remarks:reg-date:1993-03-22
>
>notify: tmiy...@gaijin.co.jp
I already talked to the guy who has o
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
If possible, it would be Good if APNIC could also make contact with the
rightful owners of the following additional 3 Japanese blocks,
Because whois contact information is, seemingly by acquisition
and relocation, obsolete, it should be impossible for APNIC
to do so.
In message <9567b241-12ce-4728-8e73-ff7143907...@apnic.net>,
Vivek Nigam wrote:
>APNIC has contacted the custodians of 139.44.0.0/16 and 168.198.0.0/16 and
>brought this matter to their attention.
Excellent. Thank you.
If possible, it would be Good if APNIC could also make contact with the
ri
Hi Ronald,
APNIC has contacted the custodians of 139.44.0.0/16 and 168.198.0.0/16 and
brought this matter to their attention.
Regards,
Vivek
Member Services Manager, APNIC
From: Ronald F. Guilmette
Date: Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:30 PM
Subject: Cogent & FDCServers: Knowingly aiding
Hello Ronald,
if you'd open the traceroute you just sent you'd see that the target is route
looping and not actually used by their alleged customer? Since the loop is
actually between the FDC aggregation router and Cogent's backbone router. Also,
what would the target IP have been in this case,
In message ,
Mel Beckman wrote:
>I’m just saying that I randomly checked one fact and it doesn’t meet
>the level of positive certainty that you asserted. It’s thus reasonable
>to ask you to double check your research all around. I’m not willing
>to be your unpaid copy editor, so let me know when
government owned building.
--srs
From: NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2019 5:30 AM
To: Ronald F. Guilmette
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent & FDCServers: Knowingly aiding and abetting fraud and theft?
Ron,
I’m just saying
Ron,
I’m just saying that I randomly checked one fact and it doesn’t meet the level
of positive certainty that you asserted. It’s thus reasonable to ask you to
double check your research all around. I’m not willing to be your unpaid copy
editor, so let me know when you’ve done a double check an
In message <67b3e0d5-7d09-42e2-a753-eb6c93859...@getmailspring.com>,
Florian Brandstetter wrote:
>if you'd open the traceroute you just sent you'd see that the target
>is route looping and not actually used by their alleged customer?
Yea. So? How is that relevant to my fundamental narrative?
In message <23540.1567802...@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, I wrote:
>Is anyone disputing that 168.198.0.0/16 belongs to the Australian
>national government, or that AS174, Cogent was, until quite recently,
>routing that down to their pals at FDCServers who then were routing
>it down to their custom
In message <5233b9b9-1bff-425d-bb8f-e3853703b...@beckman.org>,
Mel Beckman wrote:
>A quick check of one of your facts produces unexpected results, so you might
>want to perform more research. According the APNIC, 139.44.0.0/16 does not
>“belong unambiguously to the Port Authority of Melbourne”.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Neo Soon Keat wrote:
> Sorry, re-sending to include the list.
>
> Looking at the history of the prefix, it does look like it did belong to
> the now-defunct Port of Melbourne Authority, with the matching e-mail
> address. That particular organization, however, no lo
Sorry, re-sending to include the list.
Looking at the history of the prefix, it does look like it did belong to the
now-defunct Port of Melbourne Authority, with the matching e-mail address. That
particular organization, however, no longer exists, having been absorbed into
the Port of Melbourne
Important realization: Things don’t always work there like they work here
(wherever “here” is for you).
-Ben
> On Sep 6, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Carlos Friaças via NANOG wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> (Also never been in Australia, unfortunately...)
>
> Netname is "PMANET":
> ...isn't it OK to assume it co
Hi,
(Also never been in Australia, unfortunately...)
Netname is "PMANET":
...isn't it OK to assume it could stand for "Port of Melbourne Authority
Network"?
* pma.vic.gov.au is not operational
(i wonder what can be found with passive dns)
* vic.gov.au is still operational.
Quick googling
A quick check of one of your facts produces unexpected results, so you might
want to perform more research. According the APNIC, 139.44.0.0/16 does not
“belong unambiguously to the Port Authority of Melbourne”. It belongs to an
individual, with an office address at a building called “Port Autho
Few of you here probably know about this, but nearly a week ago now
an article appeared in South Africa's largest and most popular online
tech publication, MyBroadband.co.za. It detailed many, but certainly not
all of the results of my multi-month investigation of a massive and
ongoing fraud invol
25 matches
Mail list logo
