Comments inline =Marco
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:52:32PM +0100, CSIRT.UMINHO Marco Teixeira wrote: >>While I speak for myself, I might incur the risk of representing a lot of the >>so-called "Astroturfers?!". While some accuse (please don't take it >>personally, >>it's just clarification) the newcomers of being voiceless, I must say that I >>have been, with great effort, refraining from going into a long discourse on a >>list where I am new. That should not be understood as a sign of "spamming" a >>vetting process, but as a sign of respect for all of you, long-standing >>members >>of RIPE, guardians of our IP addresses, one of the building blocks of the >>Internet :-) > > I know of forums where "the n00b" is expected to shut up and > listen, but this is not one of them. At least I have never > noticed that newcomers weren't welcomed - and as I stated before, > I personally would like to see more and different voices here - > and no, not just those who agree with me although I hope some > will... It's not a "n00b" issue, for me, it's Netiquete. > > So don't be afraid to speak up if you've something to say! > I just did :) >>As one last thought, again IMHO, I believe BGP Hijacking is one of the most >>pressing issues, menacing the Internet resiliency, and it must be dealt with. >>In the same manner, we apply AUP's to our users, it's RIPE responsibility, to >>clearly state, it is not acceptable, and it will have consequences... Raising >>the risk for companies is the only way we tip the balance of "Loss vs >>Earning", >>and hopefully eradicate bad actors, or hopefully even stopping them right at >>their business plans. > > 1) The RIPE NCC is not the provider of "AUP" for the entire > Internet or even the Internet of the Service Region. I understand > that some would *like* it to be, but that is not what the members > are paying it for. Never said so. But it does provide a service that is beeing abused! And you can't really start to takle that if you don't have policy in place. > 2) If anyone needs to be "eradicated", I'd prefer that to be > determined by a judge and, preferably, a jury. NOT some > neighbourhood watch curtain-twitcher with the help of a monopoly > service provider. I believe this argument of yours has been heavilly rebated already so i won't get into lenghty conter-argument. Just to say that, by your line of thinking, we should disolve RIPE and RIPE-NCC and reclaim a piece of IPv4. If anyone doesn't like it, let them sue.
