<Petra.Zeidler@dlr.de> wrote: > Meanwhile Baddie Inc has seen that there is an assignment that is not > in use on the Internet, and announces and uses it for questionable > things. That's just hijacking. That's what RPKI is about. If Baddie Inc. got a transit provider to accept it, and didn't do RPKI, and the provider didn't demand a letter of authorization, then really, it's on the transit provider. > Yet for the purposes of someone looking for who is using a.b.c/23 on > the Internet, the database entries are wrong. > Is that the databases fault? Owner of a.b.c/23 ought to have routing objects, ROA, etc. that says that nobody is authorized to route it. The database is correct, and the complaint should be acted upon by doing something. This where the poorly monitored contact address matters so much. <Petra.Zeidler@dlr.de> wrote: > You are smallACME corp and have an assignment of a.b.c/23 that you only > use internally, for a VPN with partners (which used to be a legit > reason to get public IP space) {ps: and a reason why I think IPv6 space still needs to be easier. Or ULA-Central. VPNs can leak..} -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide