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
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
(...)
Regarding over-reach, the RIPE NCC was instituted as a numbering
registry and as a supporting organisation for the RIPE Community, whose
terms of reference are described in the RIPE-1 document. The terms of
reference make it clear that the
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Lu Heng wrote:
(...)
And for the record, it?s in my short term interest to have that policy
as we do suffer from time to time hijackings, and I made presentation in
this working group how more half million of our IP get hijacked for half
a year. But for the long term
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:17:07 +
Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Sascha, all,
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sascha Luck [ml]
> > Sent: Monday 25 March 2019 12:24
> > I therefore argue that it is maybe time to have a discussion on
> > what exactly RIPE and the NCC should be and what, if any,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:24:13 +
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:44:47PM +0200, ac wrote:
> >I frequently read someone saying "RIPE is not the Internet
> >Police" (even I have said that a few times myself) but the hard
> >truth is that any RIR has a duty to exercise
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:29:47 +
Brian Nisbet wrote:
> > and, more so: 2019-03 not proceeding would be counter to the ethical
> > administration of resources, a dereliction of responsibility and a
> > breach of trust implied in any such administration (as well as
> > administrative authority)
Hi,
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
(...)
Competition legislation talks about concepts like "dominant position", not
just strict monopolies.
I sincerely hope the EU doesn't go after RIPE NCC due to this "dominant
position".
The RIPE NCC is the registry for the addressing
Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 24/03/2019 14:32:
Also, i have read allegations about a "monopoly" regarding the service
region. Afaik, there is a transfer market which contradicts the concept
of said "monopoly" (i.e. can't get more addresses from the RIR, then go
to the market).
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
(...)
What do feelings have to do with NCC membership? There are many
members of the RIPE NCC I'd rather not share the organisation
with but that is not reason to deny them membership.
:feelsbadman:
It was only a small point about "membership"
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 02:32:23PM +, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
And while a member can feel it shouldn't be part of the same
org/company/association than (bad?) actors, it doesn't feel right that
it is that said member that should quit his/her membership.
What do feelings
Hi Niall, Ronald, All,
(please see inline)
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 23 Mar 2019, at 3:12, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
These are the land deeds of the Internet.
And they have long since been accepted as such by virtually everyone.
Precisely.
I believe that a
Hi,
(please see inline)
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message ,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
RPKI adoption is now taking off in a big way - see AT's recent
announcement and NTT's plans. Commoditisation of RPKI support for IXP
route servers will be available within weeks.
Hi,
It's probably best to state examples using "country X" and "region Y"
instead of using countries' concrete names.
I think i already used concrete country names at least once during this
thread and i apologize for that.
ps: if we ackowledge there is a gap in legislation and
On 23 Mar 2019, at 3:12, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> These are the land deeds of the Internet.
> And they have long since been accepted as such by virtually everyone.
Precisely.
I believe that a condition for their continued acceptance as such
is that the RIPE NCC avoid amalgamating
In message ,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>RPKI adoption is now taking off in a big way - see AT's recent
>announcement and NTT's plans. Commoditisation of RPKI support for IXP
>route servers will be available within weeks.
The AT announcement was indeed heartening.
Can you see if you can drag a
El 23/3/19 23:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message <6179dc11-f299-c076-0ae1-2f2d22eb6...@foobar.org>,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>If there were legislation and enforcement in this area, we wouldn't be
>having this conversation.
In message <6179dc11-f299-c076-0ae1-2f2d22eb6...@foobar.org>,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>If there were legislation and enforcement in this area, we wouldn't be
>having this conversation.
Yes, actually, we would.
Does anybody really believe that if, for example, Moldova outlawed BGP
hijacking
In message <20190323114600.gl99...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>Being expelled from the RIPE NCC means, in practical terms, that
>one cannot conduct one's business in the RIPE Service Region
I, for one, and VERY dismayed to hear of this obviously tragic development.
When
In message ,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>1. it's not the job of the RIPE NCC to make up for a short-fall of civil
>legislation in this area, no matter how distasteful we might find the
>consequences of this;
OK. I'll bite! Whose job is it then?
It would appear, based on your statement, that
Hank Nussbacher wrote on 23/03/2019 17:23:
Purity of concept will result in massive gov't intervention since we
will have shown that we don't know how to self-regulate.
The voices are already there:
https://hackernoon.com/why-the-internet-must-be-regulated-9d65031e7491
If you have an
El 23/3/19 16:49, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 23/03/2019 11:52:
> El 23/3/19 12:32, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
> 1. it's not the job of the RIPE NCC to make up for a short-fall of
civil
> legislation in this area, no
On 23/03/2019 13:31, Nick Hilliard wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 22/03/2019 22:55:
The legal bindings of the NCC already have that for those that don’t
follow existing policies, don’t pay bills, etc. So, the proposal is
adding in the table a policy for confirming what
On 23/03/2019 00:19, Sander Steffann wrote:
But, this is not how to handle the problem of BGP hijacking. Even if it had
the slightest possibility of making any difference at a technical level (which
it won't), the proposal would set the RIPE Community and the RIPE NCC down a
road which I
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 23/03/2019 11:52:
El 23/3/19 12:32, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
1. it's not the job of the RIPE NCC to make up for a short-fall of civil
legislation in this area, no matter how distasteful we might find the
consequences of this;
And
; > > BUT
> > >
> > > abuse BY a domain name (or any resource) is not necessarily an
> > > administrative issue at all (this is debatable/opinion) - as you
> > > said "some" TLD responds some do not...and RIPE NCC is not the
> >
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:02:15PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
Exactly, the vendors for barley, hops, etc., can also decide if they want to
sell them or not.
Different case, in this analogy, the NCC is the ONLY vendor for
the necessary goods.
If I don't want to
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:52:36PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
If the reason for the withdrawal is doing actions that are used to make or
facilitate illegal activities (again spam, DDoS, child pornography, etc.), I
doubt it will be the reason for courts or regulators
El 23/3/19 12:46, "Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:29:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>I learnt that there is an association for craft beer producers and one of
the rules was that if you have a sharing from an industrial beer producer,
> >
> > > They either find out for themselves or someone else points it out
> > > to them. In either case their responsibility continues if what
> > > you say holds good
> > >
> > > --srs
> > >
> > > __
Hi Nick,
El 23/3/19 12:32, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 22/03/2019 22:55:
> The legal bindings of the NCC already have that for those that don’t
> follow existing policies, don’t pay bills, etc. So, the proposal is
> adding in the
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:29:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
I learnt that there is an association for craft beer producers and one of the
rules was that if you have a sharing from an industrial beer producer, you are
automatically expelled from the association.
gt;
> > > abuse BY a domain name (or any resource) is not necessarily an
> > > administrative issue at all (this is debatable/opinion) - as you
> > > said "some" TLD responds some do not...and RIPE NCC is not the
> > > Internet Police
> > >
> > >
gt; > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > > They either find out for themselves or someone else points it out
> > > to them. In either case their responsibility continues if what
> > > you say holds good
> > >
> > > --srs
> > >
gt; > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > > They either find out for themselves or someone else points it out
> > > to them. In either case their responsibility continues if what
> > > you say holds good
> > >
> > > --srs
> > >
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 22/03/2019 22:55:
The legal bindings of the NCC already have that for those that don’t
follow existing policies, don’t pay bills, etc. So, the proposal is
adding in the table a policy for confirming what is a hijack according
to the community
Just recalled this example. Yesterday night, looking a research TV program on
craft beer.
I learnt that there is an association for craft beer producers and one of the
rules was that if you have a sharing from an industrial beer producer, you are
automatically expelled from the association.
;some" TLD responds some do not...and RIPE NCC is not the
> > > > > Internet Police
> > > > >
> > > > > So, anyway, as 2019-03 deals with hijacking, this entire over
> > > > >
El 23/3/19 12:17, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:27:32PM +0200, ac wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:04:22 +0800
> Lu Heng wrote:
> >
> > It???s very much like electricity company tell you if you do something
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:02:48 +0800
Lu Heng wrote:
> Emm...so if someone steal your house you will take your staff back
> from his home without police and court? Because you “admin” your
> staff?
>
> Try that next time and try your best explain to the judge why you
> think he took your staff
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:11 ac wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:57:43 +0800
> Lu Heng wrote:
> > It’a very much because of internet has become part of unitiy to my
> > point of view.
> >
> > Any policy that says “if you do bad thing we taking your IP number
> > back” is very much like “if you
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:27:32PM +0200, ac wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:04:22 +0800
> Lu Heng wrote:
> >
> > It???s very much like electricity company tell you if you do something
> > bad we will cut you off and stop supply electricity.and yes, they
> > will cut you if you stop paying
as per my previous post)
>> > >
>> > > BUT
>> > >
>> > > abuse BY a domain name (or any resource) is not necessarily an
>> > > administrative issue at all (this is debatable/opinion) - as you
>> > > said "some" TLD responds som
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:57:43 +0800
Lu Heng wrote:
> It’a very much because of internet has become part of unitiy to my
> point of view.
>
> Any policy that says “if you do bad thing we taking your IP number
> back” is very much like “if you do bad thing we cut your
> water/electricity off”.
>
th hijacking, this entire over reach
> > > argument is factually not relevant at all
> > >
> > > and, more so: 2019-03 not proceeding would be counter to the ethical
> > > administration of resources, a dereliction of responsibility and a
> > > breach of trust
t;some" TLD responds some do not...and RIPE NCC is not the
> > > > > Internet Police....
> > > > >
> > > > > So, anyway, as 2019-03 deals with hijacking, this entire over
> > > > > reach argument is factually not relevant at all
>
; > breach of trust implied in any such administration (as well as
> > administrative authority)
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:20:01 +
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > > They either find out for themselves or someone else points it out
&g
world are best discussed over a
> beer in the next RIPE meeting to spare the admins’ sanity here ☺
>
>
>
> *From: *Lu Heng
> *Date: *Saturday, 23 March 2019 at 4:05 PM
> *To: *Suresh Ramasubramanian
> *Cc: *ac , "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
> *Subject: *Re: [anti-ab
> >
> > > > So, anyway, as 2019-03 deals with hijacking, this entire over
> > > > reach argument is factually not relevant at all
> > > >
> > > > and, more so: 2019-03 not proceeding would be counter to the
> > > > ethical administration of resources, a dereliction of
>
behalf of ac
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:44 PM
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
>
>
> some of what the wg discusses are opinions and some things are
> scientific facts.
>
> scientific fact
, 23 March 2019 at 4:00 PM
To: ac
Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
When you stealing electricity the electricity company will not cut your
electricity at home but report you to the policy.
No one saying stealing is ok, but no
a dereliction of responsibility and a
> > > breach of trust implied in any such administration (as well as
> > > administrative authority)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:20:01 +
> > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
power line on your own, but they’ll sure disconnect you first.
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Lu Heng
Date: Saturday, 23 March 2019 at 4:00 PM
To: ac
Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
When you stealing electricity the electricity
> administrative authority)
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:20:01 +
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > > They either find out for themselves or someone else points it out
> > > to them. In either case their responsibility continues if
y’ll sure disconnect you first.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Lu
> Heng
>
>
> *Date: *Saturday, 23 March 2019 at 4:00 PM
> *To: *ac
> *Cc: *"anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
> *Subject: *Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
>
>
>
&
be counter to the ethical
> > > administration of resources, a dereliction of responsibility and a
> > > breach of trust implied in any such administration (as well as
> > > administrative authority)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:20:01 +
> &
Exactly!
If customers, employees, visitors, students, etc., are misusing the network
(for example using it for spam, DDoS, child pornography, etc.), they are
typically acting against the contract arrangements (AUP). If you've a bad
contract that's a different problem, but even in that case,
n wrote:
> >
> > > They either find out for themselves or someone else points it out
> > > to them. In either case their responsibility continues if what
> > > you say holds good
> > >
> > > --srs
> > >
> > > ___
at 3:34 PM
To: ac
Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
Nick are making good point.
How about murder is a policy violation?
How about rape is a policy violation?
Putting RIPE NCC in a juridical position just not wha
t) :)
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 07:27:40 +0000
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > > There's also the interesting comparison of how some TLD registries -
> > > many of them - act on canceling spam and phish domains while others
> > > go to ev
;
> From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:44 PM
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
>
>
> some of what the wg discusses are opinions and some things are
> s
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
some of what the wg discusses are opinions and some things are
scientific facts.
scientific facts may change as environments and other variables change,
but currently it is so that;
there is NO TLD registry that will allow the ongoing random
o do so.
>
> --srs
>
>
> From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 11:16 AM
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:13:20 +
> Nick Hilliard wrote:
&
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:13:20 +
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Regarding over-reach, the RIPE NCC was instituted as a numbering
> registry and as a supporting organisation for the RIPE Community,
> whose terms of
In message <20190322233739.gk99...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>I am also somewhat worried about the possible fall-out for the
>members if the NCC were to be found to have acted incorrectly and
>be liable for the damages to the business of a member that was
>shut down...
In message ,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>There are several aspects of this proposal that are pretty disturbing,
>but the two that jump out are 1. over-reach by the RIPE Community, 2.
>encroachment into the arena of supranational law enforcement.
I seriously don't know how one could make such a
, March 23, 2019 5:07 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 05:13:20PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>The aim of the 2019-03 proposal, as far as I understand it, is to
>grant the RIPE NCC the authority to make formal judgements
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 05:13:20PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The aim of the 2019-03 proposal, as far as I understand it, is to
grant the RIPE NCC the authority to make formal judgements about
alleged abuse of network resources with the implicit intention that
unless the party involved ends
Hi,
> The aim of the 2019-03 proposal, as far as I understand it, is to grant the
> RIPE NCC the authority to make formal judgements about alleged abuse of
> network resources with the implicit intention that unless the party involved
> ends the alleged abuse, the RIPE NCC would enforce the
The aim of the 2019-03 proposal, as far as I understand it, is to grant
the RIPE NCC the authority to make formal judgements about alleged abuse
of network resources with the implicit intention that unless the party
involved ends the alleged abuse, the RIPE NCC would enforce the
judgement by
69 matches
Mail list logo
