[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 88, Issue 72
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach -- RIPE-001 document
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] I support 2019-03 BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Durga Prasad Malyala
dp.malyala at gmail.com
Sat Mar 23 18:27:56 CET 2019
Sorry off topic. How Come I subscribed to digest yet getting multiple mails per day? Cheers/DP On Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 22:53 <anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote: > Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to > anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE > Policy Violation) (Carlos Fria?as) > 2. Re: 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE > Policy Violation) (Sascha Luck [ml]) > 3. Re: 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE > Policy Violation) (Lu Heng) > 4. Re: 2019-03 and over-reach (Nick Hilliard) > 5. Re: 2019-03 and over-reach (Hank Nussbacher) > 6. Re: 2019-03 and over-reach (Hank Nussbacher) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 13:39:04 +0000 (WET) > From: Carlos Fria?as <cfriacas at fccn.pt> > To: T?ma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com> > Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP > Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) > Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1903231315330.9599 at gauntlet.corp.fccn.pt> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; Format="flowed" > > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, T?ma Gavrichenkov wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Hi, > (will try to keep it short) > > > (...) > > 1. As of now, the draft looks like a nice example of "document > > designed by a committee". > > > > It's too strict where there's no real need to be strict, and at the > > same time too weak where you don't expect it to be weak. E.g. 4 weeks > > to report + 4 weeks to investigate + 2 weeks for an appeal give us > > solid 10 weeks for an attack to stay there, which is, to put it > > gently, a substantial amount of time. > > Just two co-authors. The set will grow for proposals in other RIRs. And > we'll gladly accept help, as Jordi is doing the most of heavy lifting. > > If your issue is timescales they can be adapted in subsequent versions. > What we tried to design here was "due process" with enough "checks & > balances" embedded. > > > (...) > > 2. OTOH the ultimate result (membership cancellation) may be seen as a > > very heavy punishment. > > > > In fact in theory this policy could make things worse. > > The scenarios you and others mentioned should be run through the process > and what you call "the ultimate result" should only happen if there is > absolutely no doubt about the intent and about the 'who'. If company A > takes control of company B's router (or hires someone to do it) is already > doing something which in most jurisdictions could fall onto "crime". If > company A could be identified, then they could/should be the 'who', and > not company B. > > I won't expect this proposal will stop *all* intentional hijackers. > Firstly it will depend on a complaint/report, then it must be crystal > clear (with all the checks & balances in place) that is was intentional, > and the hijack was made by person/org X. So if you see bogus routes from > <big company name here>'s ASN coming from somewhere in the world where > they have no business, that's because someone else is (ab)using their > ASN... > > (I would also like to hear Randy's take on 2019-03, even now before > version 2) > > > (...) > > 3. If I were to design that process, I'd put it in a different way, e.g.: > > It's not explicitely written down, but yes, the idea was to have a > (pre-existing) worldwide pool of experts. The timescales were mostly > designed expecting it would be possible to build that pool on a voluntary > basis. So 4 weeks was for a set of experts to agree on the report, > possibly on their own free time... :-) > > > Best Regards, > Carlos > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 13:54:06 +0000 > From: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> > To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> > Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP > Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) > Message-ID: <20190323135406.GO99066 at cilantro.c4inet.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > > All, > > can I ask every participant in this discussion to PLEASE, PLEASE > quote properly. It's becoming absolutely impossible to ascertain > who wrote what and who made a statement and who answered it. > > > To brass tacks: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:44:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via > anti-abuse-wg wrote: > > Immediate membership suspension at the end if the experts decide it's > > necessary to do so now. > > This is not possible under the SSA/ripe-697. Section 1.2.1.1 of > ripe-697 states clearly the grounds for termination of > membership. "BGP hijacking" is not one of them. While it is > presumably possible to add additional reasons, it will be, > TTBOMK, only by membership vote. > > I did at the start decide to give this proposal the benefit of > the doubt but I am now convinced that its intent is the > subversion of the RIPE NCC in order to force it to abuse its > dominant market position to remove from (internet) existence, > members who exhibit behaviour that, while arguably legal, > elements of this community don't like. > > Moreover, the proposal aims at doing this while largely > excluding the RIPE NCC itself from the decision-making process, > instead using some panel of "experts" to decide who should live > and who should die. Whence the authority of these "experts" > comes is not explained. The NCC Board is then, or so I surmise, > tasked with giving this decision an air of legitimacy by > ratifying it. Why the (unpaid) Board would even accept such a > questionable honour, I don't know, especially in light of the > potential liabilities. > > Further, the danger exists that this community is not done yet. > Once a mechanism to terminate unwelcome behaviour is established, > it is relatively easy to plug in any other behaviour that this > community, or elements thereof, would like to see removed from the > internet. > > In conclusio, this proposal has the potential to irredeemably > damage the relationship the NCC has with its members and I would > even argue that it has the potential to threaten the very > existence of the NCC if the powers that be decide that it is > abusing its power as a monopoly provider. > > For the avoidance of doubt, I remain in opposition, > > SL > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:26:46 +0800 > From: Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> > To: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> > Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, > anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP > Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) > Message-ID: > <CAAvCx3jaLVGJxH-KBfwsTt-gWk7v77ceDAmm= > DM0yvsO__ioMA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 21:54 Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > can I ask every participant in this discussion to PLEASE, PLEASE > > quote properly. It's becoming absolutely impossible to ascertain > > who wrote what and who made a statement and who answered it. > > > > > > To brass tacks: > > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:44:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via > > anti-abuse-wg wrote: > > > Immediate membership suspension at the end if the experts decide > it's > > > necessary to do so now. > > > > This is not possible under the SSA/ripe-697. Section 1.2.1.1 of > > ripe-697 states clearly the grounds for termination of > > membership. "BGP hijacking" is not one of them. While it is > > presumably possible to add additional reasons, it will be, > > TTBOMK, only by membership vote. > > > > I did at the start decide to give this proposal the benefit of > > the doubt but I am now convinced that its intent is the > > subversion of the RIPE NCC in order to force it to abuse its > > dominant market position to remove from (internet) existence, > > members who exhibit behaviour that, while arguably legal, > > elements of this community don't like. > > > > Moreover, the proposal aims at doing this while largely > > excluding the RIPE NCC itself from the decision-making process, > > instead using some panel of "experts" to decide who should live > > and who should die. Whence the authority of these "experts" > > comes is not explained. The NCC Board is then, or so I surmise, > > tasked with giving this decision an air of legitimacy by > > ratifying it. Why the (unpaid) Board would even accept such a > > questionable honour, I don't know, especially in light of the > > potential liabilities. > > > > Further, the danger exists that this community is not done yet. > > Once a mechanism to terminate unwelcome behaviour is established, > > it is relatively easy to plug in any other behaviour that this > > community, or elements thereof, would like to see removed from the > > internet. > > > > In conclusio, this proposal has the potential to irredeemably > > damage the relationship the NCC has with its members and I would > > even argue that it has the potential to threaten the very > > existence of the NCC if the powers that be decide that it is > > abusing its power as a monopoly provider. > > > Very well said, +1 > > > > > > > For the avoidance of doubt, I remain in opposition, > > > > SL > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190323/579a0fb5/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:49:16 +0000 > From: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> > To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> > Cc: "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach > Message-ID: <6179dc11-f299-c076-0ae1-2f2d22eb6115 at foobar.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 23/03/2019 11:52: > > ?El 23/3/19 12:32, "Nick Hilliard" <nick at foobar.org> escribi?: > > 1. it's not the job of the RIPE NCC to make up for a short-fall of > civil > > legislation in this area, no matter how distasteful we might find > the > > consequences of this; > > > > And we aren't doing that. > > If there were legislation and enforcement in this area, we wouldn't be > having this conversation. > > > 2. you can throw anything into a contract, but that doesn't mean > it's > > enforceable or even lawful. > [...] > > In this particular case, the suggestion is for the RIPE NCC to start > > making judgements about potentially legal actions between second or > > third parties, potentially involving non-related resources and to > deny > > and/or withdraw number registration services on that basis. This > does > > not sound legally enforceable. > > > > No, it is not a matter of parties. It is a matter of the membership > rules. > > Jordi, you need to take legal advice on this before proceeding further. > > Nick > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:17:06 +0200 > From: Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il> > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach > Message-ID: <cd9860db-d5d4-da6d-d07b-902affd1474c at efes.iucc.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 23/03/2019 00:19, Sander Steffann wrote: > >> But, this is not how to handle the problem of BGP hijacking. Even if > it had the slightest possibility of making any difference at a technical > level (which it won't), the proposal would set the RIPE Community and the > RIPE NCC down a road which I believe would be extremely unwise to take from > a legal and political point of view, and which would be difficult, if not > impossible to manoeuver out of. > > I fully agree with Nick. BGP hijacking has to be fought, but this is not > the way? > Exactly how successful has been MANRS - our attempt at self-regulation? > > Regards, > -Hank > > > > Cheers, > > Sander > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:23:20 +0200 > From: Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il> > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach > Message-ID: <e72ebef7-2ebc-be2e-c75c-ba203d0d3dd8 at efes.iucc.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 23/03/2019 13:31, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 22/03/2019 22:55: > >> The legal bindings of the NCC already have that for those that don?t > >> follow existing policies, don?t pay bills, etc. So, the proposal is > >> adding in the table a policy for confirming what is a hijack > >> according to the community consensus. Same way we did for how we > >> distribute resources, do transfers, etc. > > > > Hi Jordi, > > > > couple of things: > > > > 1. it's not the job of the RIPE NCC to make up for a short-fall of > > civil legislation in this area, no matter how distasteful we might > > find the consequences of this; > Purity of concept will result in massive gov't intervention since we > will have shown that we don't know how to self-regulate. > The voices are already there: > https://hackernoon.com/why-the-internet-must-be-regulated-9d65031e7491 > If you have an alternative solution, not even a better one, please > suggest it. > > Regards, > Hank > > > > > > > > > End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 88, Issue 72 > ********************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190323/0ce68721/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach -- RIPE-001 document
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] I support 2019-03 BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]