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] Defining routing abuse
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Mysteries of the Internet: AS65000
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Töma Gavrichenkov
ximaera at gmail.com
Sat Apr 13 17:48:22 CEST 2019
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 6:32 PM Andrey Korolyov <andrey at xdel.ru> wrote: > Whoops, that was fun part my mind completely obsoleted and > slipped out from the current understanding of the proposal. Yeah, the thread is quite long already. > AFAICS nobody have ever proposed clear 'intentional' distinction > over entire set of threads. Exactly the idea of not treating accidental leaks as a policy violation seems to be the authors' goal from the day one. (in fact, allowing route leaks to be in the scope of the proposal would only make things even more messy IMO) -- Töma
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Mysteries of the Internet: AS65000
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]