>> Lather rinse repeat with a better choice of address... >> >> 2001:550:3ee3:f329:102a3:2aff:fe23:1f69 >> >> This is in the ARIN region... > > Actually it's not a valid address at all, because it also has a typo. > one might assume with a typo that the most significant bits are probably > correct but potentially compounding errors doesn't sound like a good idea. >
Yes... Should have been 2001:550:3ee3:f329:02a3:2aff:fe23:1f69. Not sure how the extra 1 got in there. >> It's from within a particular ISP's /32. >> >> Has that ISP delegated some overlapping fraction to another ISP? If so, it's >> not in whois. >> Have they delegated it to an end user? Again, if so, it's not in whois. >> >> Same for 2001:550:10:20:62a3:3eff:fe19:2909 >> >> I don't honestly know if either of those prefixes is allocated or not, so >> maybe nothing's wrong >> in this particular case, but if they have been delegated and not registered >> in whois, that's >> a real problem when it comes time to get a search warrant if speed is of the >> essence. > > If you're asserting that cogent is not swiping their delegations then do > so. they have certain obligations as an LIR under the policy under which > resources were delegated to them. future prefix assignments will > clearly require that the demonstrate utilization much as they are > required to in ipv4. > I'm making no assertion about cogent whatsoever. Since I don't know whether those addresses I chose at random within the ARIN region happen to be delegated or not, I have no ability to determine whether they should be registered as delegated or not. I said this in the above paragraph you quoted. I was attempting to demonstrate the potential problem, not point to an extant example as I do not have an extant example handy, though I suspect such do actually exist. Owen