[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Mon Apr 1 18:47:20 CEST 2019
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 05:06:37PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >The same way it happens with lack of payment, explicitly part of the contract (SSA). > or delivering false/forged information to the NCC. explicitly part of the contract. You are trying to change the contract. You can't do that here. >>with, i.e. punishment by withdrawal of resources. > >It shouldn't be their decision, it should be the experts' decision. It gets better. By *what* authority does your expert get to decide that a LIR should be punished? Deo gratias? It can't be a contractual obligation, I have no damn contract with some expert... >It's possibly my fault, but (in this long thread) i still fail to read >from someone that hijacking is not offensive, and thus it should be >tolerated by the community. I understand you are trying to take this >into a grey area by comparison with other examples/abuse. It is quite possible to find "hijacking" offensive and yet to oppose a dangerous and totalitarian policy. rgds, SL
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]