[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 19/04/2019 15:03:
>> Would you find reasonable to have the rule/policy in place say for 2 or 3 
>> years, and then evaluate its impact/efectiveness...?
>
> No.  In principle, the proposal is completely broken, antithetical to the 
> RIPE NCC's obligations of being an address registry and Randy was right to 
> point out that it is a proposal for a kangaroo court.  We don't need to make 
> the mistake of testing it out to make sure.

Hi,

This question was just to express that noone really knows if the impact on 
abuse will be significant, minimal or none (but it seems there are people 
trying to state something without real data to back it up).

I would also like to read Gert's opinion on this.


> It will not have any material impact on hijacking;

Oh, so you do have the data...?


> there are better ways of handling hijacking

Such as...?


> and the proposal will have a wide variety of serious but unintended side 
> effects, some of which have been raised on this mailing list.

Do you care to list them, so we can work on their mitigation?
(i mean, those who have been raised in a disperse way in this list and 
those who haven't been raised yet)


> And it's unimplementable - the board of the RIPE NCC would have a fiduciary 
> duty to refuse to implement it.

Because you say so.

What i've heard from the Board so far on the list -- and the Board 
currently has seven members -- was a concern expressed by Piotr about 
timelines, which i think we have addressed in v2.0's text (which i 
also hope to see published soon).


Best Regards,
Carlos


> Nick
>