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

Hi Carlos,

On 2019-03-24 15:16, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> "It will not stop determined miscreants" -- even if it stops some, 
> it's already something positive, anti-abuse-wise. :-)) 

The thing is that, if you look at it from another direction, if it just 
does one "false positive", I would argue that it outweighs 100 small 
hijacks.

And then we have the other co-author,

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:42 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg<anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>  wrote:

> I think is very obvious that the experts [..] will make sure that when a warning is sufficient

How is that obvious? Answer: it is not obvious, you are just making 
assumptions.

After looking at this in a bit more detail, my stance on this proposal 
has to be that I strongly object to it.

I do feel like the better way to go about this is on a technical level, 
with more things like RPKI and IRR, not this stuff.

On another note, unless all RIRs have a similar policy, then a hijacker 
wouldn't have to be from RIPE, or what if they have gotten hold of a 
legacy ASN.

My point is that, no matter what the authors intended, I think this 
policy, would stop close to no determined hijackers, and probably cause 
a few "false positives".

- Cynthia

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190325/aba43723/attachment.html>