Hello List,
The difference between a hijack and a lease is often a valid Letter of Agency. Maybe it’s time for an explicit lease policy that would be within ARIN’s scope and could chip away at some of the issues here. Personally, I am against the proposal and agree that it is out of scope. And I am philosophically inclined against any mission-creep for ARIN. But I think there is a lacuna in policy regarding leasing that should be remedied. In the remedy there could at least be definitions of acceptable documentation for leases which would help with some hijacking issues, and spell out plainly in policy when a lease is valid, and when it is a hijack, or lease policy violation. Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 11:24 AM To: Andrew Bagrin <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation Andrew, So far, I have seen lots of discussion of the issue but I have not seen a single concise coherent complete definition of the BGP hijacking problem that includes: * What technical mechanisms are used to create a BGP hijack * How BGP hijacking is initiated * Why BGP hijacking is possible * The frequency of BGP hijacking instances * How long BGP hijacking instances last * The locations of BGP hijacking instances * How information about BGP hijacking instances can be gathered Without a really clear definition of the problem, it is hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed process. So far, it is not at all clear to me how the process described in proposal 266 will have any effect on the problem, but that may be because I do not fully understand the problem. Keith From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Bagrin Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 10:05 AM To: Marilson Mapa <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting involved to help resolve the issue of hijacking? Are you doing hijacking and don't want interference? Are you running a competitive service that you charge for? Does anyone believe there is a valid reason to hijack and advertise IP space that you do not own? (when the owner of that space does not want you to advertise it) Why would anyone be against ARIN having a process to help resolve these issues? Sure we can question how effective it will be, but anything will be more effective than nothing, and by actually doing, failing and learning, ARIN will only improve and refine the process. We will all learn from this.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
