tc etc etc... is NOT an "unacceptable liability risk."
- Original Message - Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Policy
Proposal Withdrawn (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
From: 'Marco Schmidt'
Date: 10/2/19 11:09 pm
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.
Dear colleagues,
The policy proposal 2019-03, "Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy
Violation" has been withdrawn.
This proposal aimed to define that BGP hijacking is not accepted as
normal practice within the RIPE NCC service region.
The proposal is archived and can be found at:
; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE
Policy Violation)
Unfortunately yes. However it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t discuss this, work
on solutions and don’t let this die.
Some interim solutions might be good to be deployed, like
gards,
>Sérgio
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of
> Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
> Sent: 10 de setembro de 2019 08:26
>To: Jacob Slater
>Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
>Subje
From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of
Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
Sent: 10 de setembro de 2019 08:26
To: Jacob Slater
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking is a
RIPE Policy
)
Regards,
Sérgio
-Original Message-
From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Carlos
Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
Sent: 10 de setembro de 2019 08:26
To: Jacob Slater
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking
Hello,
As the RIPE NCC's IA shows (imho), the proposed process is not perfect.
The main goal of having a process to start with was to allow some action
regarding evident cases, and i hope people will agree that significant
effort was made to accomodate comments during v1's discussion.
We
All,
Sure, but stat.ripe.net, bgp.he.net, rpki, and many other sources are free
> for everyone to access. :-)
>
Having a copy of the table and see historical data doesn't automatically
give one the ability to determine if a given announcement was a hijack.
I might strongly suspect that it was -
Hi,
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Jacob Slater wrote:
All,
If it's *your* table, you should be able.
Again, I disagree. Just because you have a copy of the routing table doesn't
automatically put you in a position to know what is going on with each entry
present in that table.
Sure, but
All,
If it's *your* table, you should be able.
>
Again, I disagree. Just because you have a copy of the routing table
doesn't automatically put you in a position to know what is going on with
each entry present in that table.
But please keep in mind than one event or a handful of events
Hi,
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Jacob Slater wrote:
All,
If that happens, then potentially everyone can be a victim, yes.
Then they should be able to place a report.
I disagree. Just because you see what you think is a hijack in the full table
doesn't mean you have enough
All,
If that happens, then potentially everyone can be a victim, yes.
> Then they should be able to place a report.
>
I disagree. Just because you see what you think is a hijack in the full
table doesn't mean you have enough information to justify a full
investigation that is likely to consume
Hi,
(please see inline)
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Alex de Joode wrote:
??Dropping it might be the best thing:
The document does not clearly state what the procedure is (binding arbitrage?
(the decision leads to a conclusion that might
have an effect on the status of the LIR involved? (with
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Jacob Slater wrote:
All,
Hi Jacob, All,
Given the number of people who may submit a report (anyone receiving a
full table from their upstream(s), assuming the accused hijack makes it
into the DFZ),
If that happens, then potentially everyone can be a victim, yes.
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Carlos
Hi Michele, All,
Nick and others have covered why it should be dropped in their emails to this
list.
Quoting from Nick's:
"
that is as damning an impact analysis as I've ever seen, and it sends a
clear signal that the
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Alexander Talos-Zens wrote:
Hej,
Hi Alexander, All,
(please see inline)
this is my first post in this list - my perspective is taht of a
security guy with little knowledge about BGP or the inner workings of
RIPE, but very interested in everything that helps definding
Carlos
Nick and others have covered why it should be dropped in their emails to this
list.
It's also pretty clear that the cost implications of this proposal far outweigh
any potential benefit.
So it should just be dropped.
And your counterargument about cost is completely divorced from
Hi Michele, All,
Can you be more specific about which problems derive from this proposal's
simple existence...?
About:
"going to cost more" -- when you try to improve something, it's
generally not cheaper, yes. but then there is "worth", which generates
different views.
(...)
The
Hej,
this is my first post in this list - my perspective is taht of a
security guy with little knowledge about BGP or the inner workings of
RIPE, but very interested in everything that helps definding against the
bad guys.
Den 2019-09-05 kl. 15:23, skrev Marco Schmidt:
> The goal of this
100% agreed
This proposal should be dropped as it's creating more problems, going to cost
more and generally causes more harms than those it was aimed to solve.
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
Intl.
In message ,
Carlos Friaças writes
>> ... also (on a brighter note), although law enforcement does move slowly
>> in this space, it does indeed move.
>>
>> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/09/feds-allege-adconion-employees-
>> hijacked-ip-addresses-for-spamming/
>
>This is from ARIN-land.
>Do
Hi Suresh, Hank, All,
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Hijacked route announcements can be carefully targeted to just a victim AS for
any attack.
Yes, they can -- and several cases (as far as i read) were already seen
when that was done over an IXP.
But that doesn't
Hi Richard, All,
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:
(...)
BTW: it should be noted that the ARIN Board of Trustees threw out the
same proposal when it was made there...
https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/board/meetings/2019_0620/
The story is a bit longer than that (involves the
Dropping it might be the best thing:
The document does not clearly state what the procedure is (binding arbitrage?
(the decision leads to a conclusion that might
have an effect on the status of the LIR involved? (with anonymous 'experts' who
act as 'judges' ? (a legal no-no))).
The
I fully agree with Nick.
Drop it like its hot ...
Erik Bais
> Op 5 sep. 2019 om 18:15 heeft Nick Hilliard het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> I'd like to suggest to the chairs that this proposal be formally dropped.
In message <3a2ff2cd-b3fb-72f3-a43c-01f66bdbc...@foobar.org>, Nick
Hilliard writes
>Marco Schmidt wrote on 05/09/2019 14:23:
>> The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal
>> version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full
>> proposal and impact
All,
Given the number of people who may submit a report (anyone receiving a full
table from their upstream(s), assuming the accused hijack makes it into the
DFZ), I'm still concerned that the proposed policy would cause more harm
than good. A random AS that happens to receive the announcement
Support the withdrawal.
--
Sergey
Thursday, September 5, 2019, 6:31:28 PM, you wrote:
>> I'd like to suggest to the chairs that this proposal be formally
>> dropped.
RB> please
RB> randy
Hijacked route announcements can be carefully targeted to just a victim AS for
any attack.
If that victim AS holder complains to their national CERT the language here
precludes the CERT from reporting into RIPE.
That is a technicality as I can't imagine RIPE would refuse reports from a
In regards to:
A.3.2. Pool of Experts
there should be some sort of insurance policy available provided by RIPE
NCC just as Board members cannot be held personally responsible, so too
the pool of experts need to be insured so that the "hijacker" doesn't
drag them into court on trumped up
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On 05/09/2019 16:23, Marco Schmidt wrote:
"A.3.1. Reporting
Only persons directly affected by a suspected hijack can report to the RIPE
NCC that another party has announced resources registered to or used by the
reporter without their consent. "
On 05/09/2019 16:23, Marco Schmidt wrote:
"A.3.1. Reporting
Only persons directly affected by a suspected hijack can report to the
RIPE NCC that another party has announced resources registered to or
used by the reporter without their consent. "
This thereby precludes any national CERT from
Dear colleagues,
Policy proposal 2019-03, "Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation"
is now in the Review Phase.
The goal of this proposal is to define that BGP hijacking is not
accepted as normal practice within the RIPE NCC service region.
The proposal has been updated following the
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:02:23PM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> What i've heard from the Board so far on the list -- and the Board
> currently has seven members -- was a concern expressed by Piotr about
> timelines, which i think we have addressed in v2.0's text (which i
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 02:18:25PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
It would be an interesting sight to see the chairman and exec board of ripe
summoned before a parliament or court to explain the situation.
You love to summon up dire
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 19/04/2019 15:03:
Would you find reasonable to have the rule/policy in place say for 2 or 3
years, and then evaluate its impact/efectiveness...?
No. In principle, the proposal is completely broken,
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 02:52:48PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> They had a fiduciary duty not to hand out whole /14s of v4 space to snowshoe
> spammers set up as eastern european LIRs not too long back
As long as spamming is a perfectly legal business in the appropriate
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 02:18:25PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> It would be an interesting sight to see the chairman and exec board of ripe
> summoned before a parliament or court to explain the situation.
You love to summon up dire legal consequences for the RIPE NCC if this
> They had a fiduciary duty not to hand out whole /14s of v4 space to
> snowshoe spammers set up as eastern european LIRs not too long back
as i intended by my reference to martin niemöller, i suspect that's who
the net police/vigilantes will come for next. and then ... and then
... it is
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Nick Hilliard
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 8:16 PM
To: Carlos Friaças
Cc: Gert Doering; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a
RIPE Policy Violation)
Carlos Friaças via anti
Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 19/04/2019 15:03:
Would you find reasonable to have the rule/policy in place say for 2 or
3 years, and then evaluate its impact/efectiveness...?
No. In principle, the proposal is completely broken, antithetical to
the RIPE NCC's obligations of being
to explain the situation.
--srs
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Carlos
Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Gert Doering
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a
R
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, ac wrote:
(...)
But anyway: the point that Randy is making that this policy is neither
common sense, nor effective in reducing abuse. So it's not the way
to go.
so you are taking it upon yourself to attach your own opinion by
commenting on how you interpret the
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
(...)
But anyway: the point that Randy is making that this policy is neither
common sense, nor effective in reducing abuse. So it's not the way to go.
Hi,
72 countries/economies in the service region (and in reality, the world),
so i
al Message
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking
is a RIPE Policy Violation)
From: Randy Bush
Date: Fri, April 19, 2019 1:55 am
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
< rant >
this is insane. neither ripe nor the ncc should b
very well said Randy, +1
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 11:33, Randy Bush wrote:
> > so you are taking it upon yourself to attach your own opinion by
> > commenting on how you interpret the point(s) Randy is making?
> >
> > how rude and presumptuous of yourself.
>
> QED? i wish folk would not resort
> so you are taking it upon yourself to attach your own opinion by
> commenting on how you interpret the point(s) Randy is making?
>
> how rude and presumptuous of yourself.
QED? i wish folk would not resort to ad homina
> it seems many people (including myself) are rude, obnoxious, not
>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:51:56 +0200
Gert Doering wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 07:33:19PM -0700, Fi Shing wrote:
> > What absolute crap.
> > Why is that every time something resembling common sense enters
> > this group, there are these people who insist on using slippery
> > slop fallacy? >
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 07:33:19PM -0700, Fi Shing wrote:
> What absolute crap. Why is that
> every time something resembling common sense enters this group, there are
> these people who insist on using slippery slop fallacy? style=""> style=""> style="">
> It wouldn't half surprise me if people like this "randy bush" are
> motivated by criminal groups.
ROFL
i have been allied with satan for years and am damned proud of it.
y criminal groups. I cannot think of any reason, other than a criminal one, why someone would object to common sense policy that leads to a reduction in abuse.(Usually, there is one other motivation (financial) but not in this proposal).
Original Message
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2
I apologize for the incorrect date in my previous email, I didn't
realize that Windows suddenly stopped knowing what time it was.
- Cynthia
On 2019-04-18 15:58, Cynthia Revström wrote:
+1
- Cynthia
On 2019-04-18 17:55, Randy Bush wrote:
< rant >
this is insane. neither ripe nor the ncc
+1
- Cynthia
On 2019-04-18 17:55, Randy Bush wrote:
< rant >
this is insane. neither ripe nor the ncc should be the net police,
courts, and prison rolled into one kangaroo court.
it is droll that the erstwhile anti-abuse working group becomes a
self-righteous abuser. so it is with so many
< rant >
this is insane. neither ripe nor the ncc should be the net police,
courts, and prison rolled into one kangaroo court.
it is droll that the erstwhile anti-abuse working group becomes a
self-righteous abuser. so it is with so many abused children.
put your energy into routing security
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:
Hard to tell in some cases whether the people running the hosting
company were merely in league with the hijackers or the hijackers
themselves. Only a court would care about the difference -- the
practical view is that it just means that action
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Peter Koch wrote:
(...)
BGP hijacking completely negates the purpose of a (Regional Internet) Registry.
This is unclear to me. The Registry registers address space, not routes.
Yes, but one of the main purposes of a Registry is that everyone knows who
is using a
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:
... I am aware of peer pressure (literally), action by IXPs, action by
organisations providing reputation scores and even action by hosting
companies.
Yes, i'm aware of that too. Sometimes it
Carlos, all,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:13:56PM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> > I also believe that certains occurences of "hijacking" constitute
> > unfriendly action, likely involving violation of crominal codes.
>
> Yes, however, jurisdictions (and lack of laws in some of
In message ,
Carlos Friaças writes
>
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
>> ... I am aware of peer pressure (literally), action by IXPs, action by
>> organisations providing reputation scores and even action by hosting
>> companies.
>
>Yes, i'm aware of that too. Sometimes it fixes
El 18/4/19 9:15, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg"
escribió:
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:39 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
> wrote:
>> And how will a dutch court
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
Fat fingers,
...we all have it :-)
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:17 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
Honestly, I think it's the opposite. If the NCC terminates a
membership agreement, it should be liable for all the consequences of
a wrong decision
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:39 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
And how will a dutch court determine a wrong decision was made? by getting
a different set of experts...?
E.g. by judging on an evidence found later, and with that
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:
In message ,
Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg writes
So, the main/only course of action, as i see it today for an hijacked
party (if the hijacker is from the RIPE region), is sending a complaint to
a dutch court... and it's doubtful if the dutch
Fat fingers,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:17 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> Honestly, I think it's the opposite. If the NCC terminates a
> membership agreement, it should be liable for all the consequences of
> a wrong decision no matter how exactly the decision is made and what
>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:39 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> And how will a dutch court determine a wrong decision was made? by getting
> a different set of experts...?
E.g. by judging on an evidence found later, and with that evidence
making a decision that original set of experts
In message <61efb045-f2dc-b274-93b9-515491a97...@foobar.org>,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>who is liable if a mistake is made?
This is a rubbish argument, as I already pointed out.
Who is "liable" if, when you get up to the counter at the
airport, Hertz or Avis tells you that they will no longer
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 17/04/2019 22:13:
The main concept is that the RIPE NCC will not have the role to investigate
or to judge, following a report.
who is liable if a mistake is made? The individuals on the judging panel or
In message ,
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Carlos_Fria=E7as?= wrote:
>What's the point in having a Registry if people just decide which numbers
>to use, even if those Internet numbers are attached to another org with
>legitimate holdership and exclusive rights of usage?
This is, in my opinion, THE
Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 17/04/2019 22:13:
The main concept is that the RIPE NCC will not have the role to
investigate or to judge, following a report.
who is liable if a mistake is made? The individuals on the judging
panel or the RIPE NCC?
Nick
Hi Peter, All,
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Peter Koch wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy
Violation", is now available for discussion.
I have read the proposal version 1.0 as published on
On 17 Apr 2019, at 14:38, Peter Koch wrote:
I have read the proposal version 1.0 as published on 13 March.
I believe that the proposers try to act with the best of intentions.
I also believe that certains occurences of "hijacking" constitute
unfriendly action, likely involving violation of
Is this despite RIPE operating a routing registry as a subset of the IRR and
allowing ASNs to announce their routing policies? Despite RIPE allocating ASNs
that are used in routing?
On 17/04/19, 7:09 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Peter Koch"
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:41:22PM
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy
> Violation", is now available for discussion.
I have read the proposal version 1.0 as published on 13 March.
I believe that the proposers try to act with the
Hank Nussbacher wrote on 02/04/2019 18:54:
To the moderators,
It could be that numerous people just don't want to get sucked up into
an endless discussion about the pros and cons of this proposal and just
want to weigh in with their feelings about whether they support the
proposal or not.
I support 2019-03
Luís Morais
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> In message 7hvmbndo92qh0q8i...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Jacob Slater wrote:
>
> >If a NCC member is actively and willfully, after having been notified and
> >given ample opportunity to resolve the issue,
In message
,
Jacob Slater wrote:
>If a NCC member is actively and willfully, after having been notified and
>given ample opportunity to resolve the issue, engaged in widespread
>hijacking such that RIR/NIR members have complained about their ability to
>use their own resources, yes.
I don't
On 02/04/2019 18:48, GEANTY Damien (RIC-CH) wrote:
To the moderators,
It could be that numerous people just don't want to get sucked up into
an endless discussion about the pros and cons of this proposal and just
want to weigh in with their feelings about whether they support the
proposal or
I support 2019-03.
Regards,
Damien Geanty
Cyber Specialist | Richemont International SA
Chemin de la Chênaie 50 | CP30 | 1293 Bellevue, Genève | Switzerland
(tel) +41227213000 | (direct) +41225811161 | (mobile) +41791385643
(email)
I support 2019-03
Regards,
Edgar Oliveira
© 2019 Richemont International SA. All Rights Reserved
The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential - please do
not cross-post. This communication is intended for the use of the addressee(s)
only. If you are not the intended
Carlos Friaças wrote on 01/04/2019 18:06:
<< Here you might have forgot to comment about "weaponized IXPs" :-) >>
Hi Carlos,
No, this was deliberate. I didn't comment because a lot of people are
throwing analogies into this discussion which aren't directly relevant
to 2019-03. If you want
>
> I agree, but to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I would
> suggest to you that it would be best if you could suggest to the proposal's
> author and sponsor some different language with respect to the procedure
> for judging such matters... some different process that would
In message
,
Jacob Slater wrote:
>In the case of IP addresses and ASNs, the "convicted individual" has been,
>under the current policy draft, convicted in the mind of one - perhaps two
>upon appeal - experts (a term which has yet to be defined in policy). Such
>an opinion, no matter how
Let's use a less loaded analogy than a gun store :-)
Suppose we are dealing with a logistics company that uses stolen lorries/trucks.
May their use of stolen vehicles potentially affect their carrier license?
Note that, even if after many months of processes the agreement with the rir
was
All,
In message <92716.1554145...@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F.
Guilmette wrote:
>So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to
> >a convicted criminal?
>
> That analogy is a poor one. It would however be accurate to say that
> my local GUN STORE is not allowed
In message ,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>BGP hijacking is just the start, but there is an endless list of things
>which are considered offensive or illegal in some or all jurisdictions
>in the RIPE NCC service area, e.g. spam, porn, offending political
>leaders, gambling, drugs, other religions,
Hi,
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 05:06:37PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
The same way it happens with lack of payment,
explicitly part of the contract (SSA).
or delivering false/forged information to the NCC.
explicitly part of
In message <20190401115412.gc97...@space.net>,
Gert Doering wrote:
>So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to
>a convicted criminal?
That analogy is a poor one. It would however be accurate to say that
my local GUN STORE is not allowed to sell firearms to a
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 05:06:37PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
The same way it happens with lack of payment,
explicitly part of the contract (SSA).
or delivering false/forged information to the NCC.
explicitly part of the contract.
You are trying to change the contract.
Hi,
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Carlos Friaças wrote on 01/04/2019 16:51:
But let's also focus on two words:
"punishing" -- no, that's not the goal, the goal is to close a clear gap
and make people understand that hijacking is not tolerated.
The explicit aim of this
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 03:29:16PM +, Ángel González Berdasco wrote:
> Gert Doering writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 01:54:42PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> > > To say that any such funds now being paid to RIPE are "tainted" would be a
> > > rather gross understatement.
> > >
Carlos Friaças wrote on 01/04/2019 16:51:
But let's also focus on two words:
"punishing" -- no, that's not the goal, the goal is to close a clear gap
and make people understand that hijacking is not tolerated.
The explicit aim of this proposal is that if the expert panel judges
that you
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:01:53PM +0200, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Let's start with political dissent
Now, I disagree on this. Disagreeing with the voice of reason in the
anti-abuse WG should certainly be reason for public flogging, and possibly
instant LIR closure.
Gert Doering
--
have
Gert Doering wrote on 01/04/2019 13:54:
Sorry, this is getting ridiculous.
It's worse than that: the proposal is that the RIPE NCC weaponises its
registry data and turns it into a mechanism for punishing people when
they do things that other people don't like.
BGP hijacking is just the
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 01:54:42PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> To say that any such funds now being paid to RIPE are "tainted" would be a
> rather gross understatement.
>
> This is the elephant in the room that none of the opponents of 2019-03
> wants to talk about, i.e. the rather
In message ,
Richard Clayton wrote:
>Instead, experts are used by those who are charged with dispensing
>justice as a means of understanding what is likely to have gone on, and
>these people then weigh the various opinions of the experts (or indeed
>their unanimity) in coming to their
In message ,
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Carlos_Fria=E7as?= wrote:
>2019-03 aims to create an inexistent rule, that could lead to
>consequences...
Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone here might happen to know the
penality, under Dutch law, for knowingly receiving stolen property,
or cash?
I only ask
In message <83185.1554061...@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F.
Guilmette writes
>
>In message ,
>Richard Clayton wrote:
>
>>However, it is not necessarily clear at all and writing a policy which
>>assumes that it will always be clear is in my view unwise.
>>
>>Assuming that experts will
In message ,
Richard Clayton wrote:
>In message <74227.1553972...@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F.
>Guilmette writes
>>In the summer of last year, 2018, I took steps to point out, in a very public
>>way, on the NANOG mailing list, two notable hijacking situations that came
>>to my
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:
(...)
I meant that the experts cannot ever be absolutely certain that their
evaluation is correct -- though of course they can be correct in their
nuanced assessment.
I've been thinking about Cynthia Revstrom's argument, and now i'm thinking
if
Hi,
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:
1) The hijackings you mentioned also affect your customers, right?
I do not believe they did, not all announced space is in use
If third parties could receive any of the customer's space is already bad
enough. The hijacker could be
1 - 100 of 336 matches
Mail list logo
