This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Wed Sep 29 21:45:30 CEST 2010
In message <88540617-14A6-4190-896A-339FD1FDDB14 at blacknight.com>, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.ie> wrote: >Ronald > >If we were putting servers in the US we would probably have to get an AS nu >mber and allocation from ARIN. We also would have non-EU clients with RIPE >space. I'm sorry Michele, but can I ask you to please clarify what point it was that you were making? I understand... and I suspect that everyone else here does as well... that if a European company (`C') supplying connectivity gets a Latin American client, for example, then yes, that Latin American client may end up being issued some IP space out of the allocations previously granted to `C'. That makes perfect sense. But the organization with the 195.80.148.0/22 block that I mentioned seems to have its own AS, and that AS appears to be independently announcing a route for that IP block. Furthermore, the IP block allocation seems to have come directly from RIPE, and not from some European connectivity provider which is simply making sub-allocations of its own previously-assigned IP space. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]