So you are claiming that ARIN has jurisdiction over DoD IP space? Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:13 AM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > Sronan - > > I’d suggest asking rather than making assertions when it comes to ARIN, as > this will avoid propagating existing misinformation in the community. > > Many US government agencies, including the US Department of Defense, have > signed registration services agreements with ARIN. > > From https://account.arin.net/public/member-list - > > United States Department of Defense (DoD) USDDD > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > >>> On 25 Apr 2021, at 8:54 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: >>> >>> Except these DoD blocks don’t fall under ARIM justification, as they >>> predate ARIN. It is very likely that the DoD has never and will never sign >>> any sort of ARIN agreement. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> ARIN rules require every IP space holder to publish accurate — and >>> effective — Admin, Tech, and Abuse POCs. The DOD hasn’t done this, as I >>> pointed out, and as you can test for yourself. Your expectation that the >>> DOD will “generally comply with all of the expected norms” is sorely naive, >>> and already disproven. >>> >>> As far as “why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your >>> arbitrary standards”, you seem to forget that in the U.S., the government >>> is accountable to the People. Where a private company may not have to >>> explain its purposes, the government most certainly does in the private >>> sector. With these IP spaces being thrust into the civilian realm, yes, >>> they owe the citizenry an explanation of their actions, just as they would >>> if they had started mounting missile launchers on highway overpasses. It’s >>> a direct militarization of a civilian utility. >>> >>> Keep in mind that the U.S. Government — under all administrations — has >>> shown that it will abuse every technical advantage it can, as long as it >>> can do so in secret. Perhaps you’ve forgotten James Clapper, the former >>> director of national intelligence, who falsely testified to Congress that >>> the government does “not wittingly” collect the telephone records of >>> millions of Americans. And he was just the tip of the iceberg. Before >>> Clapper under Obama there was the Bush administration’s Stellar Wind" >>> warrantless surveillance program. The list of government abuse of civilian >>> resources is colossal . >>> >>> Fighting against that isn’t political. It’s patriotic. >>> >>> -mel >>> >>>> On Apr 25, 2021, at 12:02 AM, Mark Foster <blak...@blakjak.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/04/2021 3:24 am, Mel Beckman wrote: >>>>> This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of >>>>> transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. I’m >>>>> going to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and >>>>> detailed — purpose can be known. The secret places of our government have >>>>> proven themselves untrustworthy in the protection of citizens’ data and >>>>> networks. They tend to think they know “what’s good for” us. >>>>> >>>>> -mel >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why does anyone on the Internet need to publish to your arbitrary >>>> standards, what they intend to do with their IP address ranges? >>>> >>>> Failure to advertise the IP address space to the Internet (until now, >>>> perhaps) doesn't make the address space any less legitimate, and though >>>> I'd expect the DoD to generally comply with all of the expected norms >>>> around BGP arrangements and published whois details, at the end of the >>>> day, they can nominate who should originate it from their AS and as long >>>> as we can see who owns it.... it's just not our business. >>>> >>>> Any organisation who's used DoD space in a way that's likely to conflict >>>> with, well, the DoD, gambled and lost. >>>> >>>> Mark. >>>> >
