On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 11:27 AM Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> 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 > > If you apply that ideology to 0/0 you're not going to have much of an Internet beyond cat pics. Wish i was in the room when they turned it on. I hope they make a tiktok of the expressions of everyone looking at the first data. [ joke ] Warm regards, -M< > On Apr 24, 2021, at 8:05 AM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > > As noted - > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-address-mystery/#click=https://t.co/mVh26yBq9G > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:35 AM, John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> wrote: > > > Tom – > > Most definitely: lack of routing history is not at all a reliable > indicator of the potential for valid routing of a given IPv4 block in the > future, so best practice suggest that allocated address space should not be > blocked by others without specific cause. > > Doing otherwise opens one up to unexpected surprises when issued space > suddenly becomes more active in routing and is yet is inexplicably > unreachable for some destinations. > > /John > > On Nov 5, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > > Using the generally accepted definition of a bogon ( RFC 1918 / 5735 / > 6598 + netblock not allocated by an RiR ), 22/8 is not a bogon and > shouldn't be treated as one. > > The DoD does not announce it to the DFZ, as is their choice, but nothing > says they may not change that position tomorrow. There are plenty of > subnets out there that are properly allocated by an RiR, but the assignees > do not send them to the DFZ because of $reasons. > > In my opinion, creating bogon lists that include allocated but not > advertised prefixes is poor practice that is likely to end up biting an > operator at one point or another. > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:45 AM Töma Gavrichenkov <xima...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Peace, >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 4:55 PM David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: >> > On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> >> wrote: >> >> This thread got me to wondering, is there any >> >> legitimate reason to see 22/8 on the public >> >> Internet? Or would it be okay to treat 22/8 >> >> like a Bogon and drop it at the network edge? >> > >> > Given the transfer market for IPv4 addresses, >> > the spot price for IPv4 addresses, and the need >> > of even governments to find “free” (as in >> > unconstrained) money, I’d think treating any >> > legacy /8 as a bogon would not be prudent. >> >> It has been said before in this thread that the DoD actively uses this >> network internally. I believe if the DoD were to cut costs, they >> would be able to do it much more effectively in many other areas, and >> their IPv4 networks would be about the last thing they would think of >> (along with switching off ACs Bernard Ebbers-style). With that in >> mind, treating the DoD networks as bogons now makes total sense to me. >> >> -- >> Töma >> >