>
> If you predicate sending reports via web form, then report forwarding
> from the ISP to its customer should also be done via web form.
>
The relationship between an arbitrary internet user and an ISP is different
from the relationship between an ISP and a customer who is on a contract.
I can (
der pressure) to provide
information on the basis of a report that may or may not have come from
someone who actually knows about the situation.
Sure. And i have already read the IA. All of it.
>
OK. I've done the same. I still feel that the IA outlines a lot of issues
and problems. At this time
ple around the
world would not resort to hijacking if this proposal was in place today
My apologies for misspeaking on that one. Any references I may have made
to 2019-3 as a "policy" should read as "policy proposal".
Just because a policy proposal has the chance to discour
w, the policy seems to pull a large amount of resources and risk
(per the impact analysis) without enough of a return.
Jacob Slater
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:45 PM Carlos Friaças wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Jacob Slater wrote:
>
> > All,
>
> Hi Jacob, All,
>
>
led in the Impact Analysis, I'm opposed to
the policy as written.
Jacob Slater
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Marco Schmidt wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Policy proposal 2019-03, "Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation"
> is now in the Review Phase.
>
>
you, but I do believe that this is a matter
> of fine-tuning the procedural aspects of the propsal, rather than simply
> opposing or abandoning it wholesale.
>
Agreed so far as being open to revisions. see last line
Given the number of references I've made to rev 2.0, I'll
r anything outside of
nonpayment), it would still be considered censorship.
Whst this *is* actually all about is just this: You steal IPs and
> then you lose your IPs.
>
I've still yet to be convinced that this would substantially cut down on
hijacking; additionally, I've yet to be
; If that's true, then it should certainly be fixed.
>
Reading through the exact text, the only mention of the distinction appears
to be a definition.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:34 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> In message <
> cafv686e9aa8xhacuz+epfbelu74mpce-2pic2-kpu-1xapt...@
prohibited from
bringing down an entire LIR. Fat fingering happens.
Finally, how does the proposed policy apply to sponsored resources (ASNs
and PI space)? Is an entire LIR to be held accountable for sponsoring the
resources for users who are otherwise supposed to be independent?
Jacob Slater
On Tue, Mar
