[anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Fri Apr 12 20:14:34 CEST 2019
In message <CALZ3u+YhuC1-nho1bt6Wtj88P4PQXYkNnSevKASO_NrVmb0POA at mail.gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera at gmail.com> wrote: >Peace, > >This is to continue the discussion around 2019-03. Here's our today's >article about the ways some operators do traffic engineering: >https://radar.qrator.net/blog/new-hijack-attack-in-the-wild > >Should that also be treated as a policy violation? This is clearly intentional. The answer, I think, should depend only on the answers to two key questions: 1) Was the routing done with the knowledge and consent of the prefix owner(s)? 2) If not, then was the routing withdrawn promptly when the route originator was notified that he/she/it was doing something wrong?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]