RE: Ettiquette and rules regarding Hijacked ASN's or IP space?

["Christopher L. Morrow" <chris () UU NET>]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Michel Py wrote:

> Chris,
>
> > Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > excellent point :) the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' was
> > just non-abuser/abuser. Certianly ARIN's requirements for ASN
> > ownership are simple enough, be multihomed and have a 'unique'
> > routing policy. If you need an ASN likely you are already
> > multihomed and have a 'unique' routing policy, eh?
>
> Yep.
>
>
> > If you fuzz over the 'bad'/'good' beyond 'abuser'/'non-abuser'
> > then perhaps there isn't a distinction. Perhaps clarification:
> > Someone that sets up an ISP and hijacks ASN/ip-blocks
> > specifically to abuse versus someone who hijacked an ASN to
> > avoid paperwork.
>
> I'm not buying into this "avoid paperwork" thing. I can't speak for
> RIPE, APNIC or LACNIC, but in the ARIN region I have requested ASNs both
> for myself and helped customers request theirs and it's not that big of
> a deal.

Note that I didn't say it was a 'good' reason, just a reason... that or
'status' to have an ASN below number N (like say 10,000??) not that it
matters to the routing system WHAT your ASN might be, just that one
exists...

> There is no real money incentive either: if one is setting up a real
> ISP, a one-time $500 fee is a) part of the cost of doing business and b)
> well worth the money compared to be labeled as a hijacker.

indeed... some people are shortsighted perhaps? Again, I don't understand
the mentality so I can't argue for it...

> Save for network engineers that have snagged an ASN from a merge and
> recycled it for their home network or pet project (there are none on
> this list, of course), would you mind giving some specifics about 'good
> guys' that have hijacked an ASN?