In message <CAFV686fiERyCQru9=bxp4+eatosf9af9jgewnx+fhrbu1nf...@mail.gmail.com>, Jacob Slater <[email protected]> wrote:
>Are you suggesting that the NCC should include a statement in the LIR >account agreement (discouraging hijacking) that they will subsequently not >intend to enforce (in most if not all cases)? I am. >While the threat of legal action might scare some off, I don't feel like it >will convince the majority of hijackers to cease, less so if it is known >that the NCC is unlikely to enforce it. As I noted, "enforcement" of rules, unspoken or otherwise, with respect to routing, is rather entirely a matter of peer pressure, and this is affected, I think, by personal reputation. I suspect that some entities would be marginally more reluctant to peer with certain bad actors if a clear cut case could be made that those specific bad actors have a habit and history of flaunting and/or ignoring explicit contractual commitments, even if those commitments are never enforced by the other party/parties to the relevant contract(s). (One might call this "The Trump Effect". Is has been reported in multiple places that Mr. Trump was in the habit of both breaking contracts and then also suing his contractual counterparts. After this pattern of behavior became widely know, Mr. trump allegedly found it rather more difficult to obtain new bank loans.)
