Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Ettiquette and rules regarding Hijacked ASN's or IP space?
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:59:22 -0400


On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:04:22PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

excellent point :) the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' was just
non-abuser/abuser. Certianly ARIN's requirements for ASN ownership are
simple enough, be multihomed and have a 'unique' routing policy. If you
need an ASN likely you are already multihomed and have a 'unique' routing
policy, eh?

It's not even THAT difficult...all you have to be is multihomed _or_ have
a 'unique' routing policy.

Being multihomed by itself is trivial and plenty of justification...does
anybody have some examples of 'unique' routing policies, that require
ASNs, that don't require or imply multihoming? For example, while
anycasting is a good example of a potential use of an ASN without
requiring multihoming, it's kind of implied that they're at least
purchasing transit from multiple organizations (if not truly multihomed)
and could easily justify an ASN without having to specify their unique
routing policy.

What sorts of 'unique' routing policies justify an ASN?

Anything weird, bizaare, or different. Like once every year when some
ip/colo provider decides they want to sell local peering routes or want to
give every datacenter an ASN, or when some route optimization company
decides they need a huge block of ASNs for...well...nevermind, or when
someone decides that they need a special ASN dedicated to acting as a
border between their reserved asn customers and the rest of the world...

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault