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/[email protected]/
[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 ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Mar 21 00:04:53 CET 2019
Hi, please see inline, On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:26:28PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> countinue to make, the exact same mistake that Mr. Luck has made here, >> i.e. failing to note the clear distinction between things that are >> "political" and things that are abjectly and abundantly criminal, > > I don't think that word means what you think it does. "criminal" > has a very precise legal meaning. If you think that advertisement > of numbers is a criminal act, please provide jurisdiction, act > and article under which it is. Three words: "dutch", "court", "order" -- that's jurisdiction over RIPE NCC. (...) > You must have read a different verion of this proposal than what > I have read. The proposal calls for a "finding" to be made and a > report submitted. Any consequences are not even within the > mandate of RIPE policy. And ratified (you may have missed that bit!) I also don't see any immediate or automatic consequence(s). However, if the policy was indeed violated, then the door is open for subsequent action(s) -- which can take its due time as already established. This proposal doesn't even try to touch that, and i hope this is completely clear by now. >> I would just like it noted, for the record, that RIPE is actually not a >> "monopoly provider", and that the four other RIRs might reasonably take >> umbrage at the very suggestion. > > And, like so often, you are wrong here too. Allow me to disagree (again). > Each RIR is a monopoly provider for its own service region. Some RIRs > even mandate that the resources they allocate and assign must not be > used outside their service region. Have you heard about legacy resources? Do you know they can be subject to transfers? Additionally, please note you wrote "Some RIRs", not "All RIRs" :-) Question: if that mandate is not comploed, is it enough for the NCC to terminate the SSA? Regards, Carlos > rgds, > Sascha Luck >
- 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 ]