[anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse

>
> But, anyway, it is a hijack by perception: the LIR managing the
> prefixes didn't authorize the split announcement. Also, frankly, it's
> not really clear if it's an optimizer just *leaking* or that's on
> purpose.
>

Has this route split (not including 25s) been visible globally? Hijacks or
simular behavior happening only in scope of certain IXP are undoubtfully
problematic in terms of automated issue escalation as IXP members probably
had some sort of agreement on traffic engineering and whatever else being
used within a limited scope. The 2019-03 is not about having a purpose or
not and I highly doubt that it will be possible to define legal matters for
hijacks with limited visibility scope as no trusted parties could observe
it at a time. Covering all possible misuses of a global routing table
certainly seems possible when we are describing global leaks, because
everything else is a matter of trusted route propagation and not the
application of a policy where trusted actors not always be able detect the
problem at all.

tl;dr - don't try to fix all possible leak scenarios with the policy,
consider only ones been globally (a bad term, yeah) visible where space
owner has a complaint against the leak
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190413/a224ed52/attachment.html>