Hi Keith, > Keith W. Hare wrote : > I have not yet seen a complete clear consistent definition of BGP/Route > hijacking. Such a definition is a prerequisite to defining a meaningful > policy.
I agree. And in order to have that clear consistent definition of what hijacking is, we also have to define what it is not. Included, but not limited to : - Squatting. - Loitering. - Some forms of DDOS mitigation. - Leasing (same as DDOS mitigation, it's technically hijacking with permission). - Traffic Engineering. - Traffic Shaping. - Interception (lawful and not). - ASN impersonation. - ASN usurpation. - AS-PATH manipulations. - The relation between MPLS and BGP. - VRFs. > To me, ARIN’s current practice is a good way of responding to BGP/Route > hijacking reports. > It includes the flexibility, investigation, and communication necessary to > identify and > correct issues. The current practice works by using communication and > persuasion. It has > the advantage that the details are not codified in policy and so can adjust > depending on > the actual details and intent discovered during the investigation. +1 I trust that ARIN's staff has the necessary training, experience, background, and technical expertise for such practice. Which unfortunately I can't say the same about some of the participants in the recent debate. I welcome questions, and I hope ARIN will continue to weigh correctly the assertions of people who have never configured BGP on a production network. Michel. _______________________________________________ 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.
