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

In message <94320.1553230125 at segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F.
Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> writes
>
>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?

not everything is in a route registry --- and you may recall some
previous work that I did showing that the mere presence of entries in a
route registry is no guarantee that it reflects an actual peering
arrangement:

<https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2015/11/02/ongoing-badness-in-the-
ripe-database/>

note of course that some changes have been made since then which improve
the situation as regards out-of-area space

-- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190322/82951503/attachment.sig>