An unfortunate occurrence.  Respect to ARIN for owning it completely, and being 
transparent enough to share it with us.  

Aaron

> On Dec 12, 2025, at 11:28 AM, John Curran via NANOG <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Chase (and the NANOG operator community) –
> 
> Apologies for not replying earlier, but I wanted to make sure we understood 
> exactly what went wrong and had that written up as an incident report (i.e., 
> rather than responding piecemeal and without full clarity).
> 
> Short version – ARIN failed here (as you noted in your post). We’ve published 
> a public incident report that lays out what happened, the impact, and what 
> we’re changing:  https://www.arin.net/announcements/20251212/
> 
> This came down to some remaining manual handling around NRPM 4.10 space, 
> which uses a sparse allocation model and wasn’t yet fully integrated into our 
> automated inventory. That gap allowed your already in-use IPv4 /24 block to 
> be mistaken as available and reissued to another customer. When it was 
> removed and reissued, your associated ROA was removed as well, along with 
> reverse DNS services, etc.
> 
> We had plans to automate our NRPM 4.10 inventory management (largely for 
> efficiency reasons), but this incident and subsequent review showed that the 
> remaining manual steps pose more risk than is reasonable. As a result, we’ve 
> moved that work well up the priority list for development. In the meantime, 
> and as detailed in the incident report, we’ve put additional controls in 
> place – including a mandatory second review on any resource deletion from an 
> organization – to prevent this from happening again.
> 
> I will also be reviewing our number resource inventory management practices 
> internally (and with the ARIN Board of Trustees) to ensure there are not any 
> other similar situations that might pose such a risk. My deepest apologies 
> for this incident; we are acutely aware that the integrity of Internet number 
> resources is essential to network operators, and thus it must be inherent to 
> ARIN’s performance at all times.
> 
> Sincerely,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> 
> On Dec 9, 2025, at 1:19 PM, Chase via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hey NANOG,
> 
> 
> 
> After receiving a BGPAlerter notification that one of our subnets 
> (23.150.164.0/24) had been hijacked, I checked and noticed the prefix in 
> question was missing RPKI. Assuming I had fat fingered something and 
> butchered the ROA, I logged into ARIN and found that the prefix was missing 
> from our resource list entirely, and had been reallocated to another 
> organization and announced from their network. I created a ticket in ARIN and 
> called immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> They confirmed that our subnet had been accidentally reallocated to another 
> customer, and that they are currently working on returning it to us. After a 
> couple hours, they told us the other organization will stop announcing the 
> prefix, and WHOIS will be returned shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m guessing there’s no way to prevent this kind of thing on our side if the 
> RPKI ROA itself is removed along with the allocation? I’m planning on adding 
> checks to look for missing ROAs (in addition to invalid/expiring ones), which 
> I'm guessing would've caught this earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Have any of you had anything like this happen with ARIN or another RIR? I’m 
> especially curious what might have happened if we’d only noticed and reached 
> out a few weeks later instead of within a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chase Lauer
> 
> GalaxyGate, AS397031
> 
> https://galaxygate.net
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5MCMSACQADNXE65BTK34MQ3PXY4PDETF/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/FY3SDD72W5OFTJHIPHMB46JBGQFE2G6G/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JJ5IYY6I46PLZJZNXOG2TEJ5JPHZZ5HQ/

Reply via email to