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

In message <Hb1CgOCoY9kcFAKS at highwayman.com>, 
Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com> wrote:

>Yes hijacks can be simple to understand -- but they can be very complex
>and perfectly legitimate activity can look like a hijack until a lot of
>detail has been considered.

I'm a simple minded man, and I guess I'm perplexed by this.

Isn't the whole point of route registries generally and RIPE's in particular
supposed to be to make it easy for pretty much any arbitrary outsider to
look at a given block and a given route to that block and conclude that
the two -do- in fact properly go together, or conversely, that they do not?

I really did believe (and do believe) that this is/was the whole point of
creating and maintaining such route registries.

But your comment makes it sound as if there are some dark black arts that
must be conjured up, perhaps on a level of complexity on a par with
integral calculus or protein folding, in order to just simply know
that some route `R' has been properly authorized by the legitimate
registrant of block `B', or conversely, that the route in quiestion
is -not- authorized by the relevant resource registrant.

So, I guess I must be missing something.  To the extent that you would
educate me on what I'm mising, I would be greatful.


Regards,
rfg