[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
- Subject: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
- From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:58:00 +0200
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAHdm837CJdipLizvfQRPxCtY_DOot=CWDBQOqWrWyQsCYQijog@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGW6bB[email protected]> <[email protected]>
The intent is to clearly state that this is a violation of the policies.
The membership documents/bylaws or the RSA, your account may be closed. I looked at it when adapting the policy from RIPE to ARIN, don't have this information right in my mind, but I'm sure it was there.
Otherwise, if needed another policy should state something like "if you keep violating policies" this and that may happen. This should be something generic for *any* policy violation not in general. We have this in RIPE and LACNIC, and I'm also convinced that in APNIC and AFRINIC (still working on those versions).
ï»¿El 26/4/19 23:41, "NANOG en nombre de Jon Lewis" <nanog-bounces at nanog.org en nombre de jlewis at lewis.org> escribiÃ³:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:41 AM Matt Harris <matt at netfire.net> wrote:
> Can you (or someone else on the list, perhaps even someone who was involved in voting this down) provide some more details as to why it was rejected?
> Hi Matt,
> As I understand it (someone with better knowledge feel free to correct me) the proposal was ruled out of scope for ARIN because ARIN registers numbers, it doesn't
> decide how they're allowed to be routed. ISPs do that.
> I personally support the petition. I think the out of scope reasoning is flawed. By enforcing minimum assignment sizes, ARIN has long acted as a gatekeeper to the
> routing system, controlling who can and can not participate. For better or worse, that puts the proposal in scope.
> I personally think it's for worse. I oppose the proposal itself. I'd just as soon ARIN not act as a gatekeeper to BGP and certain don't want to see it expand that
Maybe I missed it in the proposal, but I don't see that it actually says
what ARIN will do other than produce a report "Yep, our expert panel says
this is hijacked.". What's the expected result (other than the report)?
i.e. What action is ARIN expected to take after it's determined a route
advertisement is a hijacking that will make a difference?
Anecdotally, ARIN has, in the past, gotten involved in this sort of thing.
Many years ago, during an acquisition that went sour at the last minute,
the renegging seller went to ARIN complaining that we were hijacking his
IP space. ARIN contacted our upstreams and pressured them to pressure us
to stop advertising the IP space. Perhaps there's no official policy, and
perhaps they wouldn't do this today without one?
Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route
| therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.