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

I agree two years are long.

But if we assume it's always the same few black sheep that engage in
this activety, then it's worth going that route.

If that is not the case, then I would suggest to change the termination
process in a second step. We would then have good arguments supporting
this.

Typically trying to pack too much in one change triggers rejection.

Cheers
Serge


On 20.03.19 08:57, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:53:02AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>> So that's a fairly effective way to sanction abusive behaviour.
>>
>> The amount of time that will transpire from the time of abuse and a LIR 
>> closed and their resources withdrawn can well be in excess of a year if 
>> not two years.
>>
>> Is that the end result we are looking for?
> 
> I would hope that *having* a way to sanction abusive behaviour would
> deter criminals from doing so in the first place.  Today, not enough
> people care, and playing havoc with BGP (intentional or accidentially) 
> has hardly any consequences at all.
> 
> OTOH, these are the questions that make me undecided on the proposal :-)
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> 

-- 
Dr. Serge Droz
Member of the FIRST Board of Directors       Senior Advisor
https://www.first.org                        https://www.ict4peace.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190320/65b078b9/attachment.sig>