[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
Fri Mar 22 12:52:02 CET 2019
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:21:43PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >I don't think I've said that if it is really a victim. I know my English is bad, but not so terrible! not you, that was Carlos and he has since clarified what he meant. >A direct peer I mean here is the provider of the hijacker. Should you verify and filter anything that doesn't belong to your customer? I do because my customers are small-ish and mostly personally known to me and I can use manual prefix filters. I don't want to presume as to what is possible or scalable for other networks, nor even what they should do. 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 ]