Hi Ronald,
APNIC has contacted the custodians of 139.44.0.0/16 and 168.198.0.0/16 and brought this matter to their attention.
Regards,
Vivek
Member Services Manager, APNIC
In message <9567B241-12CE-4728-8E73-FF7143907CEF@apnic.net>,
APNIC has contacted the custodians of 139.44.0.0/16 and 168.198.0.0/16 and
brought this matter to their attention.
Excellent. Thank you.
If possible, it would be Good if APNIC could also make contact with the
rightful owners of the following additional 3 Japanese blocks, all of
which were, of late, routed by Cogent to FDCServers and thence, presumably,
to Mr. Cohen.
143.136.0.0/16
143.253.0.0/16
146.51.0.0/16
I tried to make contact myself with the legit owners of all of the above,
but found it to be quite difficult. The registered owner of the first
one appears to have gone into hiding on a remote island someplace. I only
say that because, despite some considerable effort on my part, I was not
able to find him. Making contact with the legitimate owners of the other
two blocks, both of which belong to Japanese corporations that are still
very much alive, was rather difficult also, because I am only a stupid
gaijin, and don't speak a word of Japanese.
Regards,
rfg
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
If possible, it would be Good if APNIC could also make contact with the
rightful owners of the following additional 3 Japanese blocks,
Because whois contact information is, seemingly by acquisition
and relocation, obsolete, it should be impossible for APNIC
to do so.
143.136.0.0/16
143.253.0.0/16
146.51.0.0/16I tried to make contact myself with the legit owners of all of the above,
but found it to be quite difficult. The registered owner of the first
one appears to have gone into hiding on a remote island someplace.
From whois information:
remarks: reg-date: 1993-03-22
notify: tmiyoko@gaijin.co.jp
mnt-by: MNT-ERX-CROSFIELDELE-NON-JP
last-modified: 2008-09-04T07:31:15Z
I guess CROSFIELDELE is Japanese branch of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosfield_Electronics
The firm was eventually taken over by Fujifilm Japan and named
Fujifilm Electronic Imaging, now FFEI Ltd. following a
management buy-out in 2008.[1]
though, according to:
https://www.ffei.co.uk/about-ffei-design-and-manufacture-digital-inkjet/
MBO was in 2006. In the page, we can also confirm that FFEI was
crosfield until 1997.
Making contact with the legitimate owners of the other
two blocks, both of which belong to Japanese corporations that are still
very much alive, was rather difficult also, because I am only a stupid
gaijin, and don't speak a word of Japanese.
Both relocated. I send queries to the current contact points.
Maybe, blocks with stale contact information are attacked.
Masataka Ohta
In message <152f0dbc-f7af-2a78-c5a7-f2062effed23@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>,
From whois information:
remarks: reg-date: 1993-03-22
notify: tmiyoko@gaijin.co.jp
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I already talked to the guy who has owned the above domain name for mre than
25+ years. He's an American, living in Southern California, who these days
runs a solar panel installation company.
He told me that he has no way to find "tmiyoko" anymore and that that guy
was just one of thousands of customers the guy in SoCal had, back 20+ years
ago, for his Japanese ISP business.
Regards,
rfg
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
To me:
notify: tmiyoko@gaijin.co.jp
merely suggest miyoko has some relationships with
gaijin (foreigners), which is partly why I guess:
is the owner.
Masataka Ohta
As I wrote:
143\.136\.0\.0/16 143\.253\.0\.0/16 146\.51\.0\.0/16I tried to make contact myself with the legit owners of all of the above,
but found it to be quite difficult. The registered owner of the first
one appears to have gone into hiding on a remote island someplace.
Both relocated. I send queries to the current contact points.
I get reply from technical people in a company, which has
originally assigned:
146.51.0.0/16
they said they have never transferred the block and allow me
to post so here.
So, RADB entry:
https://pastebin.com/raw/ZNgNuvtt
route: 146.51.0.0/16
origin: AS174
descr: Cogent
mnt-by: MAINT-AS199267
changed: elad@netstyle.io 20190710 #17:02:13Z
source: RADB
is confirmed to be registration fraud.
Masataka Ohta
a message of 34 lines which said:
they said they have never transferred the block
So, RADB entry:
...
route: 146.51.0.0/16
origin: AS174
...
is confirmed to be registration fraud.
I nitpick, but "never transferred the block" is not the same thing as
"never authorized Cogent to announce it".
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
This should not be just a “nitpick". AT&T announces our extremely legacy ARIN allocation for us because we do not qualify to have an ASN, but I absolutely did not, will not, and *have actively resisted attempts to* transfer the block to them. I would sooner have my gums tattooed than give up my address space. Having an ASN was not a requirement when we were allocated the resource, and I don’t see why we should be punished for being early adopters.
Getting an AS number is as easy as getting two $20/month virtual servers (e.g. from Vultr and one other provider) and then applying for one from ARIN on the grounds that you’re multihomed. As a bonus, you can actually announce it from the VPS provider with a couple prepends, link back to your site with a VPN through whatever cheap commodity backup path you can get and actually be multihomed.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
How exactly is it punishment that BGP needs an AS number? If AT&T won't support a private AS number for the last mile then that's AT&T, not ARIN. If you're a legacy holder you should be around long enough to know this stuff and that it's not some conspiracy that BGP uses AS numbers.
It’s not. I was objecting to the implication that if someone announces a prefix that has not been transferred to their ownership it is fraudulent or shady, and as a consequence I should be forced to surrender my addresses since I can’t announce them myself.