News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1. Parent comment

Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by MattSteelblade on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:33PM (#17181243)
It was assigned to APNIC in 2010 http://seclists.org/nanog/2010/Jan/776
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by charonn0 on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:46PM (#17181366)
Allocated, not assigned.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by MattSteelblade on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:41PM (#17181869)
APNIC used that terminology in their analysis paper of 1.0.0.0/8, "1.0.0.0/8 has been assigned by IANA to APNIC on the 19th January 2010" [1]. To do this analysis, wouldn't they have had to advertise a route back in 2010?

[1] http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by Joeri on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @01:56PM (#17181467)
What is the practical difference?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by MattSteelblade on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:43PM (#17181886)
From RIPE, "An allocation is the block of IP addresses that is reserved by the RIPE NCC for your use now and in the future. An assignment is a block of IP addresses from your allocation that is used on an active network."

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by brutal_chaos on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:04PM (#17181550)
I was curious as well and found this:

https://serverfault.com/questions/191497/ip-addresses-assign...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Possible BGP hijack of 1.1.1.1 by seanp2k2 on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @02:03PM (#17181546)
It didn’t do the bad thing until after it was assigned, so no one cared when it was allocated.
[ Parent | on HN ]