On 02/05/2019 12:16, Scott Leibrand wrote:
ARIN’s only authority is to over their registry of who “has” which
addresses, so the only thing I can imagine they could do would be to
threaten to revoke unrelated registrations from a transit provider who
willfully or negligently accepted the BGP announcement of space from
an entity it wasn’t registered to. But if tier 1 transit providers
aren’t willing to filter, let alone depeer, each other over hijacking
today, it seems unlikely they’d be willing to stop accepting formerly
legitimate prefixes from a peer or customer network just because ARIN
is trying to take that space away to punish the network for accepting
an unrelated hijacked announcement.
It doesn't really seem to be this the discussion about Transit providers
accepting or not certain announcements. Even if a Transit Provider
accepts announcements from people who are not responsible for an
allocation nor has authorization to do that they should only be warned
to take correction measures. I don't think the main aim of the propose
is do anything with Transit providers.
Even in a hypothesis a Transit provider has no filters a hijack will not
occur if a hijacker doesn't initiate it.
Scott
On May 2, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Adam Thompson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Instead of focusing on whether the current proposal is or isn’t in
scope, I suggest we re-cast the discussion as follows:
1. So far, we have unanimous community agreement that BGP hijacking
is bad.
2. So far, we have broad agreement that “something ought to be done”
about BGP hijacking, although detailed opinions vary significantly.
3. So what (else) *_can_* ARIN do about it? (Caveat: the answer
“/nothing/” is unacceptable to a significant proportion of PPML
participants.)
My suggested direction to the AC and/or the board would therefore be:
*/_Find_/* something ARIN can do to help combat the problem (more
effectively). If this requires expanding the scope of ARIN’s
operations or policies, bring that back to the membership (possibly
via PPML?) with the accompanying financial & legal analysis, as usual.
Now the question becomes: what is the most appropriate mechanism,
within ARIN’s existing policies, to bring a request like that to the
AC and/or Board? It seems clear to me that the petition already
underway here is not meeting, and will not meet, the needs of the
community very well.
-Adam
*Adam Thompson*
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
*<image001.png>*
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.merlin.mb.ca <http://www.merlin.mb.ca/>
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience
any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
