After seven+ months of abject and utter inaction, ARIN spoke thusly:
``Media Breakaway and ARIN have cooperatively reached an agreement...''
Translation from politic-speak:
``They threatened us, and because their lawyers were bigger than our lawyers, we decided to cut a deal.''
``Media Breakaway will be returning this space upon completion of renumbering to a new IPv4 allocation...''
Humm... let's see here. In the old days, at least, people in this newsgroup generally used to get upset whenever an ISP would give a spammer plenty time to get all of his files backed up, and arrange for new hosting BEFORE the ISP in question would kick the spammer off that ISP's network. Back in the day, people here would get even MORE upset when an ISP would be seen to simply shuffle its spammers around to new IP address locations.
I guess that times are indeed changing.
Or maybe it's just that like General Motors and Citigroup, ARIN is just "too big" and "too vital" to be held accountable, i.e. to the same standards as everybody else.
Oh! Just one more little thing...
I would be remiss if I failed to call attention to the fact that ARIN _still_ hasn't said a single word about the *other* /16 block that also, somehow, became the property of Mr. Geoff Mulligan, i.e. the GoldHill block (128.168.0.0/16) which I described at length here:
One question: Why not? Why hasn't ARIN said anything about THAT?
This case was every bit as blatant as Mr. Mulligan's creation of the "SF Bay Packet Radio, LLC" Colorado LLC. In the case of the GoldHill block, Mulligan also created "GoldHill Computers, LLC" as yet another Colorado LLC which, by pure happenstance, just happened to have the same name (except for the trailing "LLC" part) as the name of a pre-existing entity which all contemporaneous evidence suggests is the true and rightful owner of the block in question, i.e. GoldHill Computers, Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
By his brief announcement, John Curran/ARIN has effectively admitted that something untoward happened in the case of the SF Bay Packet Radio block (134.17.0.0/16). Apparently, that's the most that ARIN's lawyers would allow him to do, and his statement has quite obviously been cautiously crafted with an eye towards avoiding litigation. Now, ARIN & Curran should dig deep and summon up at least the minimal amount of intestinal fortitude to likewise admit that the GoldHill block (128.168.0.0/16) has also passed into Mulligan's hands via questionable means. That block should be returned to its rightful owner, i.e. GoldHill Computers, Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts, forthwith. There is no excuse for ARIN failing to do what's right in the case of the GoldHill block. I'm sure that NASA can get along just fine without ARIN giving them their SF Bay Packet Radio /16 block back. But for the small 4-person company that still survives today as GoldHill Computers, Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts, getting *their* /16 back would be a rather bigger deal.
But I guess that simple decency is too much to hope for in this day and age, so I won't be holding my breath.
Regards, rfg
P.S. I know of several other blocks for which the rightful title is equally dubious to the ones I have already reported on. I would "out" those too, but frankly, what's the point? I think it's clear now, even moreso than it was seven months ago, that The Establishment on the Internet, aka The Powers That Be, simply consider these cases, and my reporting on them, to be nothing more than annoyances, to be papered over and shoved under the rug, as slowly and as quietly as possible... on the advice of counsel, of course.
> P.S. I know of several other blocks for which the rightful title is equally > dubious to the ones I have already reported on. I would "out" those too, but > frankly, what's the point? I think it's clear now, even moreso than it was > seven months ago, that The Establishment on the Internet, aka The Powers That > Be, simply consider these cases, and my reporting on them, to be nothing > more than annoyances, to be papered over and shoved under the rug, as slowly > and as quietly as possible... on the advice of counsel, of course.
A suggestion: Stop the conspiracy theories and create a webpage with short, precise material (not the current verbose stuff). This will make it a *lot* easier to follow the "network identity theft".
Matthias Leisi <matth...@leisi.net> wrote: >Ronald F. Guilmette schrieb:
>> P.S. I know of several other blocks for which the rightful title is equally >> dubious to the ones I have already reported on. I would "out" those too, but >> frankly, what's the point? I think it's clear now, even moreso than it was >> seven months ago, that The Establishment on the Internet, aka The Powers That >> Be, simply consider these cases, and my reporting on them, to be nothing >> more than annoyances, to be papered over and shoved under the rug, as slowly >> and as quietly as possible... on the advice of counsel, of course.
>A suggestion: Stop the conspiracy theories and create a webpage with >short, precise material (not the current verbose stuff). This will make >it a *lot* easier to follow the "network identity theft".
>-- Matthias
I believe Ron has done that. These are not "conspiracy theories".
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > Humm... let's see here. In the old days, at least, people > in this newsgroup generally used to get upset whenever > an ISP would give a spammer plenty time to get all of his > files backed up, and arrange for new hosting BEFORE the > ISP in question would kick the spammer off that ISP's network. > Back in the day, people here would get even MORE upset > when an ISP would be seen to simply shuffle its spammers > around to new IP address locations.
> I guess that times are indeed changing.
> Or maybe it's just that like General Motors and Citigroup, > ARIN is just "too big" and "too vital" to be held accountable, > i.e. to the same standards as everybody else.
Why don't you block all ARIN allocations then? <ftp.arin.net/pub/stats/arin/delegated-arin-latest >
{I can't imagine you'll ever see much of anything again.}
-- E-Mail Sent to this address <BlackL...@Anitech-Systems.com> will be added to the BlackLists.
In article <eRWYk.8652$Ei5.8...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists <N...@BlackList.Anitech-Systems.invalid> wrote:
>> Back in the day, people here would get even MORE upset >> when an ISP would be seen to simply shuffle its spammers >> around to new IP address locations.
>> I guess that times are indeed changing.
or maybe a little maturity is appearing.
Pointing out those odd changes in address block registrations was a positive contribution to the fight against unsolicited bulk email advertisers. Throwing tantrums about what ARIN did is classic NANAE. It's the old syndrome that greets a kill notice with outrage that reporter was not glorified and that the customer was not killed along with the customer's account. Or the castigation of MAPS for requiring mailed evidence and its own due diligence instead of simply obeying RBL nominations delivered via NANAE.
Blaming ARIN for this chapter in the Wholesalebandwidth saga is like a child screaming "But I wanted a pony!" when presented with a gift.
>> Or maybe it's just that like General Motors and Citigroup, >> ARIN is just "too big" and "too vital" to be held accountable, >> i.e. to the same standards as everybody else.
Or maybe ARIN is only what it is. ARIN has no power not freely given by those who pay its fees and recognize its allocation announcements. It's not as if ARIN is ICANN, and it's not as if ICANN has any power not given by U.S.Dept of Comm. and the operators of the DNS roots.
>Why don't you block all ARIN allocations then? > <ftp.arin.net/pub/stats/arin/delegated-arin-latest >
> {I can't imagine you'll ever see much of anything again.}
That's a unkind suggestion, because it would deprive the other person of a reason to feel powerful--never mind how tenuous.
Only ISPs have any real power to enforce allocations. You might reasonably say that all of the old direct assignments ought to be revoked and block owners should re-apply and be qualifed. If you know anything about IP address assignments and politics, you know why that idea is as dead today as it has been since before ARIN was created.
Demanding that ARIN revoke half dozen of the thousands of assignments inherited from the previous regime and transferred in the last 15 years because self-described powerful spammer fighters say the transfers might have been shams (and not offering any proof) is literally evidence of mental illness. Those who know about the buying and selling of legacy blocks know what probably happened. Many organizations have been purchased in part because their assets included address blocks. These transfers smell worse than most, but bad smells are not sufficent reason in a society ruled by law.
It's not as if denying Wholesalebandwidth its own address blocks would significantly bother that outfit or reduce spam in the Internet. Anyone willing to sell supply Wholesalebandwidth with bandwidth for its own address blocks also has plenty of IP addresses for rent. Denying Wholesalebandwidth an address block would be coup counting as impotent as the noise about revoking domain name registrations because of bad WHOIS records.
On 2008-11-30, "RFG" == Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
RFG> After seven+ months of abject and utter inaction, ARIN spoke RFG> thusly:
RFG> ``Media Breakaway and ARIN have cooperatively reached an RFG> agreement...''
RFG> Translation from politic-speak:
RFG> ``They threatened us, and because their lawyers were bigger than RFG> our lawyers, we decided to cut a deal.''
RFG> ``Media Breakaway will be returning this space upon completion RFG> of renumbering to a new IPv4 allocation...''
<...>
While it's been noted elsewhere, 174.140.0.0/18 was assigned directly ARIN to Media Breakaway, LLC, by ARIN, on 13 November 2008. This seems to correspond directly to the return of the 134.17.0.0/16 allocation.
dritz@glimmer:~% whois -a 174.140.0.0
OrgName: Media Breakaway, LLC OrgID: MBL-24 Address: 1333 W 120th Ave Address: Suite 101 City: Westminster StateProv: CO PostalCode: 80234 Country: US
