[ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)

Hi,

> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:23:16PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> I just read the Regulation you mentioned but I fail to see how this would even apply to anything mentioned in this discussion...
> 
> That's why I asked a lawyer. In simple words: The NCC is vulnerable to
> court orders from anywhere within the EU.

I understand that if anyone in the EU enters into an agreement with the RIPE NCC then they can bring the RIPE NCC to court if they break the agreement. I still fail to see how this affects the case where governments want to tell the RIPE NCC to take a certain action...

>>>> Ah, ok. But since your assumption is invalid (there is no default,
>>>> and the quick-start examples which would probably be used for such a
>>>> "lazy default" are completely different from what you assume) then
>>>> your case isn't very interesting to discuss any further.
> 
> [citation needed]

In random order:
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/certification/router-configuration
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/command/bgp-m1.html#wp3677719851
http://lacnic.net/documentos/lacnicxv/rpki/2BGP-Origin-Validation.pdf
http://m.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/38258/RPKI_Deployment_LACNIC.pdf
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.2/topics/topic-map/bgp-origin-as-validation.html#jd0e385

And from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/configuration/xe-3s/irg-origin-as.pdf: "You can allow an invalid prefix to be used as the BGP best path, even if valid prefixes are available. This is the default behavior."

>>> There may not be a default *yet*, but there will be and it will be
>>> "drop if invalid/missing" because that is much easier to understand
>>> ifor the decision-makers than localprefs, metrics, etc.
> 
>> Ok, now you are making even more unfounded assumptions. Please stop
> 
> Well, if you can see the future any better than I, please enlighten us.

I'm not the one claiming "There may not be a default *yet*, but there will be".
*You* claim to see the future -> *you* provide evidence.

- Sander