Chris,
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> excellent pointthe 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...