On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:56:46 -0500 (EST), Brian Wallingford wrote:
>I've searched the IANA and ICANN sites, and have found no justification
>for what appear to be ARIN allocations to foreign entities within
>66.231.
>
>Two serious UCE/hacking attempt offenders are as follows:
>66.231.64.0/20 GIGA-BLK-1
Last I checked, Columbia was part of South America. The 'A' in Arin means
America, the two continents.
>66.231.128.0/20 ECON-BLK-1
>
>Both of which appear to be completely unapologetic for their users'
>activities and refuse to take any action against repeat offenders
>(10's of thousands of attempts per week here). Why have these blocks
>apparently been allocated via ARIN?
>
>Am I missing something?
I'm not sure what you think ARIN has to do with UCE/hacking. ARIN allocates
IP addresses. The regional splitting of the registries is more for reasons of
convenience than anything else and I don't believe there's any special reason
ARIN should deny a request just because the addressees will be using the
block out-of-the region. (Though it is recommended that you use the registry
for your region.)
It is common for companies with a presence in multiple regions to deal with
a single regional registry and then use the blocks where they actually need
them. This is much better than them using two for a variety of reasons
including that it makes the registry better able to assess the justification.
So a multinational company might request all the blocks it needs through ARIN
and it's U.S. office.
What benefit do you think a policy of strictly enforcing region boundaries
would have?
DS
