Brandon - Agreed – the key phrase being "within a more limited scope” …
/John > On 20 Jan 2021, at 1:26 PM, Brandon Martin <lists.na...@monmotha.net> wrote: > > On 1/20/21 12:52 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >> <chuckle> While route hijacking isn't necessarily an ARIN issue, I will >> note that several US law enforcement agencies (FBI & NCIS Cybercrime units) >> are quite interested in such events and do investigate them looking for >> criminal activity. >> >> (See >> https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG77/2108/20191028_Elverson_Your_As_Is_v1.pdf >> for details.) >> > > I think the difference is semantic but a very important one nonetheless. > > Announcing a netblock that isn't yours and that you don't have authorization > to use to others under the same terms and assumptions as you announce those > to which you do hold legitimate rights or otherwise purporting to be a > legitimate user of them on what we know as the "public Internet", that is the > Internet where numbers are managed by IANA and the relevant RIRs is a "big > deal". > > Using numbers in a manner contrary to how they are assigned on the "public > Internet" within a more limited scope where everybody agrees that the use of > such numbers may be contrary to IANA and relevant RIR assignments is more > along the lines of "you operate your network however you want". > > Other things would fall under the same purview. For example "alternate root" > DNS hierarchies with extra TLDs or even TLDs used in contrast to ICANN > recommendations would have similar considerations. > -- > Brandon Martin