[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 ]
Hank Nussbacher
hank at efes.iucc.ac.il
Wed Mar 20 08:53:02 CET 2019
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:06:11AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> >> More or less I agree with the proposal. But what happens after a LIR is >> found to be violation of the policy? RIPE NCC puts out a statement "LIR X >> is in violation of Policy nnnn"? So what? How does this policy assist >> stopping the BGP hijack from taking place, even if it takes 1-2 months to >> handle the paperwork? > > Well, that's a subtle twist of the proposal not actually spelled out - a > LIR found to be in violation of RIPE policies is breaking their contract > with the NCC (the SSA) and as such can be closed and their resources > withdrawn. > > So that's a fairly effective way to sanction abusive behaviour. The amount of time that will transpire from the time of abuse and a LIR closed and their resources withdrawn can well be in excess of a year if not two years. Is that the end result we are looking for? -Hank > > (I haven't decided whether I think this is going to work or do harm, so > I'm not voicing support or opposition on the proposal itself) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >
- 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 ]