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

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:46:08PM -0700, Jacob Slater wrote:
>
>Route objects are not always required. While route objects are generally
>preferred and should be used, letters of authorization are still in use
>today. You certainly wouldn't see them in a public database (though you
>might see objects which claim to be tied to them). Even if you do, they may
>well be stale and no longer accurate.

In my world, these authorisations are largely informal (phone
calls, emails, sometimes personal meetings). The people involved
know and trust each other, there is no need for bureaucratic
exercises.

>Because they have had no valid reason to do so yet. Making it a policy
>violation doesn't seem like the right way to encourage them to do so.
>It is not the job of the NCC to tell users how to run their network. As
>annoying as it is at times, this includes how users choose to authenticate
>their announcements.

Agreed, and I refuse to accept the NCC's authority to do so. 

rgds,
SL