This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 89, Issue 15
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 89, Issue 15
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 89, Issue 15
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Apr 4 22:58:31 CEST 2019
Hi, On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message <20190404183631.GZ97529 at Space.Net>, > Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > >> Still targeting the wrong crowd. A few willing Tier1 ISPs would have way >> more effect than all policies we do in RIPE land against a rogue ISP that >> might not even *be* a RIPE member (or a member of any LIR). > > It is a fair point, but it raises an obvious question, which I ask now > in all seriousness, because I really and truly do not know the answer: > > Wny have Tier 1 providers not stepped up and done a much better job > of policing hijacks better than they have done? Not all hijacks reach the so-called DFZ. "Partial visibility" hijacks can happen without touching any of the Tier-1s.... Regards, Carlos > Regards, > rfg >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 89, Issue 15
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 89, Issue 15
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]