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] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrey Korolyov
andrey at xdel.ru
Wed Mar 20 09:01:30 CET 2019
> > > And when everything is made clear, if a report is filed against AS1, AS1's > holder might have a problem, so i see a strong reason for not even trying > :-) > > Out of interest, take an AS1 with single malicious upstream AS2, what stops AS2 to pretend that AS1 has made bogus announcements and make them for its own purposes? This situation looks pretty real without RPKI or other advertisement strengthening methods, as I could see. How experts are supposed to behave in this situation? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190320/f57a0b9b/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]