:>I've searched the IANA and ICANN sites, and have found no justification
:>for what appear to be ARIN allocations to foreign entities within
:>Two serious UCE/hacking attempt offenders are as follows:
: Last I checked, Columbia was part of South America. The 'A' in Arin means
:America, the two continents.
Granted, that was a poor example.
Last I checked, France wasn't in either of the Americas.
:>Both of which appear to be completely unapologetic for their users'
:>activities and refuse to take any action against repeat offenders
:>(10's of thousands of attempts per week here). Why have these blocks
:>apparently been allocated via ARIN?
:>Am I missing something?
: I'm not sure what you think ARIN has to do with UCE/hacking. ARIN allocates
:IP addresses. The regional splitting of the registries is more for reasons of
:convenience than anything else and I don't believe there's any special reason
:ARIN should deny a request just because the addressees will be using the
:block out-of-the region. (Though it is recommended that you use the registry
:for your region.)
Understood, and I certainly wouldn't expect that any given registry would
presume to play policeman for the networks they've allocated. My only
point was that one should be able to assume, based on network number,
that a given prefix can be looked up via a given registry's database, and
that the result should reflect an organization (or a branch of an
organization) within that registry's region.
: It is common for companies with a presence in multiple regions to deal with
:a single regional registry and then use the blocks where they actually need
:them. This is much better than them using two for a variety of reasons
:including that it makes the registry better able to assess the justification.
:So a multinational company might request all the blocks it needs through ARIN
:and it's U.S. office.
Again, understood. NTT/Verio, among others, is a good example of such.
In such a case, the ARIN record should reflect the physical address, and
other contact info for the given U.S. office, IMHO, not the foreign
address, for what I would think are obvious reasons.