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

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Richard Clayton wrote:

I see this as a start.  This is proposing a radical change in our way of 
handling IP hijacking from today.  Perhaps after a few years where people 
see that the Internet hasn't died and there is a vast reduction in BGP 
hijacks, we can then go to handle AS hijacking as well as unallocated IP 
address hijacking.  Maybe what is being proposed will not work and will 
have no affect of the hijackers.  Lets try it for 2 years in a limited 
capacity and if successfull, we can always have a v2 or v3 which expands 
the scope to cover other issues.

Regards,
Hank


> In message <E1h6E3W-00051F-BF at www-apps-1.ripe.net>, Marco Schmidt
> <mschmidt at ripe.net> writes
>
>> The goal of this proposal is to define that BGP hijacking is not accepted as
>> normal practice within the RIPE NCC service region.
>>
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03
>
> <quote>
>
> The announcement of unallocated address space to third parties is also
> considered a policy violation and is evaluated according to the same
> parameters.
>
> </quote>
>
> This is going to be somewhat challenging ... since there are a
> substantial number of well-known (and generally non-abusive entities)
> who are announcing unallocated address space, and in many cases they
> have been doing so for years on end.
>
> I understand there is a mixture of long term disputes about allocations;
> failures to keep contact addresses up-to-date (so that allocations are
> withdrawn) and doubtless also intentional usage of resources that have
> not been allocated.
>
> Geoff Huston publishes a list on a daily basis:
>
>        http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#Bogons
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I think it is most undesirable that any
> prefix appears on the list -- but I am pragmatic enough to accept that
> there are significant difficulties in dealing with the complexities
> which are behind those announcements.
>
>
> BTW: Geoff Huston's data gathering exercise also identifies the usage of
> AS numbers that are not currently allocated. Again, much of this usage
> is very long standing and failure to "grandfather it in" in some manner
> is likely to cause a substantial workload and the deeming of many
> legitimate companies to be in breach of RIPE norms -- which is going to
> tend to make the impact of the policy rather less than might be hoped.
>
> That all said -- why does the proposed policy not address the misuse of
> AS numbers as well as the misuse of prefixes ?
>
>