[ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon May 20 19:26:40 CEST 2013
Hi, > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:23:16PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: >> I just read the Regulation you mentioned but I fail to see how this would even apply to anything mentioned in this discussion... > > That's why I asked a lawyer. In simple words: The NCC is vulnerable to > court orders from anywhere within the EU. I understand that if anyone in the EU enters into an agreement with the RIPE NCC then they can bring the RIPE NCC to court if they break the agreement. I still fail to see how this affects the case where governments want to tell the RIPE NCC to take a certain action... >>>> Ah, ok. But since your assumption is invalid (there is no default, >>>> and the quick-start examples which would probably be used for such a >>>> "lazy default" are completely different from what you assume) then >>>> your case isn't very interesting to discuss any further. > > [citation needed] In random order: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/certification/router-configuration http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/command/bgp-m1.html#wp3677719851 http://lacnic.net/documentos/lacnicxv/rpki/2BGP-Origin-Validation.pdf http://m.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/38258/RPKI_Deployment_LACNIC.pdf http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.2/topics/topic-map/bgp-origin-as-validation.html#jd0e385 And from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/configuration/xe-3s/irg-origin-as.pdf: "You can allow an invalid prefix to be used as the BGP best path, even if valid prefixes are available. This is the default behavior." >>> There may not be a default *yet*, but there will be and it will be >>> "drop if invalid/missing" because that is much easier to understand >>> ifor the decision-makers than localprefs, metrics, etc. > >> Ok, now you are making even more unfounded assumptions. Please stop > > Well, if you can see the future any better than I, please enlighten us. I'm not the one claiming "There may not be a default *yet*, but there will be". *You* claim to see the future -> *you* provide evidence. - Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]