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

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Carlos Friaças wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> To me, 1 year or even two is way better than "infinite".
> (i.e. nothing happens. ever.)

True.  Agreed.

-Hank

>
> The current lack of policy in this regard is allowing for (intentional) 
> hijackers to remain associated (through the RIPE NCC Association) with other 
> members.
>
> Isn't this something we should try to change?
>
> I honestly don't see "speed" as a critical factor, and i also hope that if 
> this gets in place more networks will be able to export their routing view, 
> so that global routing security improves a bit.
>
> Of course there is RPKI, MANRS and so on, but i do believe something should 
> be in place at policy level.
>
> Best Regards,
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:06:11AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> More or less I agree with the proposal.  But what happens after a LIR is
>>>> found to be violation of the policy?  RIPE NCC puts out a statement "LIR 
>>>> X
>>>> is in violation of Policy nnnn"?  So what?  How does this policy assist
>>>> stopping the BGP hijack from taking place, even if it takes 1-2 months to
>>>> handle the paperwork?
>>> 
>>> Well, that's a subtle twist of the proposal not actually spelled out - a
>>> LIR found to be in violation of RIPE policies is breaking their contract
>>> with the NCC (the SSA) and as such can be closed and their resources
>>> withdrawn.
>>> 
>>> 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 closed and their resources withdrawn can well be in excess of a year if not 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?
>> 
>> -Hank
>>> 
>>> (I haven't decided whether I think this is going to work or do harm, so
>>> I'm not voicing support or opposition on the proposal itself)
>>> 
>>> Gert Doering
>>>        -- NetMaster
>>> 
>> 
>