Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

There was no scorn intended, and I apologize if I offended you by my comment. It was a good faith attempt to indicate that I was willing to engage constructively on the matter. Owen > On May 23, 2019, at 11:06 AM, Marilson Mapa wrote: > > Good faith for you. A scorn no doubt supposing I had

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

David Farmer, an ARIN-AC which can compare member of the list with terrorist with second intention and is not even warned. You represent this institution. Mamma Mia, you slip more than soap. If I present 200 reasons that require an ethical stance of ARIN, I will receive back 201 explanations

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Yes, ARIN can terminate the RSA for illegal conduct, however, generally, that clause is expecting the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction to make the determination that illegal activity has occurred. Without such a finding from a court, ARIN could be found liable for unfair termination.

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Ø If organizations violate their legal agreements with you, then that’s a matter for the legal system, not ARIN. Ø ARIN is not law enforcement agency, but rather a Regional Internet Registry. REGISTRATION SERVICES AGREEMENT – ARIN-RSA 13. TERM AND TERMINATION (b) Suspension of Services or

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On 23 May 2019, at 5:46 PM, Marilson Mapa mailto:marilson.m...@gmail.com>> wrote: ... If ISPs and Registrars behaved like stated in their AUPs and ToSs, and the RIRs and ICANN required their customers to act accordingly, they would not be on the crime pages of the newspapers. But they would be

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Good faith for you. A scorn no doubt supposing I had something to lose with my suspension for two weeks. And irrelevant because he challenged me by the list and not off list. Then he will have the answer requested by the list, after all he is an ARIN AC member. We must respect his desire.

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Owen wrote: Ø I don’t mind waiting two weeks for your reply… I’ll still be here. Careful what you wish for... Owen, I'm sorry I used you, but I knew that if I poke the bear I would have material to spare. About the paradise you described and that Steve Jobs described a very different

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:03 AM Marilson Mapa wrote: > Owen wrote: > > Ø I don’t mind waiting two weeks for your reply… I’ll still be here. > > Careful what you wish for... > > Marilson > Marilson, I took Owen's offer to be made in good faith. If your comment is a veiled threat, it has no

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Owen wrote: Ø I don’t mind waiting two weeks for your reply… I’ll still be here. Careful what you wish for... Marilson Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 16:18, Owen DeLong escreveu: > > > On May 7, 2019, at 7:46 PM, Marilson Mapa wrote: > > Owen, I almost cried with the paradise you described.

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:19 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On May 7, 2019, at 7:46 PM, Marilson Mapa wrote: > > ... > I mentioned the creation of BGP that replaced EGP, with policy-based > routing, a routing based on a set of non-technical rules, defined by > Autonomous Systems, to BGP4 designed

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 7, 2019, at 10:03 PM, Michel Py > wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > > Owen and I have been interacting for decades and we have met in person. > We have radically opposed opinions on some heavy topics that I will not > mention here. > Although it was private, I have admitted publicly that

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 7, 2019, at 7:46 PM, Marilson Mapa wrote: > > Owen, I almost cried with the paradise you described. > > Ø people of good will and good character > Ø like a small town where everyone could leave their doors unlocked > > In the 20th century? Steve Jobs described a very different

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 07:25:49PM +, Michel Py wrote: > 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. I've always

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Keith, there are many ways to sabotage a work or avoid inconvenient rules. The most efficient way is to ask definitions. You asked for a definition. Although for many it is a difficult definition, it is very easy for me. The problem is that a list member have tied to your request twelve other

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Hi Owen, Owen and I have been interacting for decades and we have met in person. We have radically opposed opinions on some heavy topics that I will not mention here. Although it was private, I have admitted publicly that Owen is the only person who proved me wrong in the matter of public

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Owen, I almost cried with the paradise you described. Ø people of good will and good character Ø like a small town where everyone could leave their doors unlocked In the 20th century? Steve Jobs described a very different environment. I was there and I was already an adult, and this paradise

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 7, 2019, at 12:25 , Michel Py > wrote: > > 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

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Hello Keith, You wrote: If you want to better understand the history of how ARIN and the other Regional Internet Registries were created, there is a bit of information at https://icannwiki.org/American_Registry_for_Internet_Numbers. There should be more RIR history around, but I???m not sure

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

. Hare Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation Hi Keith, After all an exempt comment. No disparagement without ulterior motives and respectful. You are a rare bird. INCITS must have been successful

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> Keith > > > > > > *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Marilson > Mapa > *Sent:* Monday, May 6, 2019 11:41 PM > *To:* Owen DeLong > *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-26

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:41 PM Marilson Mapa wrote: [snip] > Yesterday was "out of scope", today "there are no legal powers", tomorrow... > only the devil knows. > Mr. Ash's swamp is not on prop-266, it's on this corrupt internet that treats > the population as beef cattle. > Why so such

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

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

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 6, 2019, at 8:40 PM, Marilson Mapa wrote: > > They say that there are more than 80,000 autonomous systems with about one > million prefixes. The coexistence of this universe without the BGP seems > impossible with equal operability. But the BGP has at its origin a critical > design

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

They say that there are more than 80,000 autonomous systems with about one million prefixes. The coexistence of this universe without the BGP seems impossible with equal operability. But the BGP has at its origin a critical design flaw. Whoever designed it or was ill-intentioned, or assumed that

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

>> Michel Py wrote: >> http://flent-newark.bufferbloat.net/~d/IPv4%20Unicast%20Extensions3.pdf > Töma Gavrichenkov wrote : > Yes! Thanks. >> Cisco has tried too, 11 years ago. >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 > Also Paul and Geoff, to complete the picture. >

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 1:25 AM Michel Py wrote: > http://flent-newark.bufferbloat.net/~d/IPv4%20Unicast%20Extensions3.pdf Yes! Thanks. > Cisco has tried too, 11 years ago. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 Also Paul and Geoff, to complete the picture.

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Mon, May 6, 2019, 11:08 PM Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >Impossible. It's disabled in the stack, hard-coded as a martian or a > bogon, > >can't even configure it, name it. > > Sounds like a software problem. > > If your software doesn't do what you want it to do, that's hardly ARIN's >

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:04 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > To reduce this to one, you first need to identify an organization that can be > Trusted with that authority, literally the ability to revoke the valid status > of > every route on the internet (or at least every route that has a corresponding

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message <99f558ce-26b4-43ab-80d5-a092d1d33...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong wrote: >4. Because (lawyers) and (US politics), the ARIN TAL is not > freely available without agreement to a license which: > (1) Prohibits redistribution without imposing the same >

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message wrote: >> Ronald F. Guilmette wrote : >> I really have no knowledge of any of this, and your contentions are rather >> entirely perplexing. If people want to use 240.0.0.0/4 -internally- as >> private RFC1918 address space, who's preventing them from doing so? > >Impossible. It's

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 6, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:45 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Well, this might pose one small problem… ARIN doesn’t approve (or disprove) >> any other RIR’s RPKI, nor does it have any authority or basis for doing so. > > Perhaps this represents

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:45 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > Well, this might pose one small problem… ARIN doesn’t approve (or disprove) > any other RIR’s RPKI, nor does it have any authority or basis for doing so. Perhaps this represents a design issue in the RPKI that would likely be addressed in due

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:10 PM John Curran wrote: > > In effect:. “Address Holder agrees to only route to the Internet its own > address blocks, or those address blocks for which it has obtained > permission of the registrant as listed in the Internet Number Registry > System.” > > Does the

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Mon, 6 May 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:04 AM Owen DeLong wrote: At HE, we found a huge uptick in IPv6 sage certifications when we handed out T-shirts. Perhaps a ?My resources are signed? Are yours?? kind of T-shirt might help. This is exactly what APNIC

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Ronald F. Guilmette writes: > If people want to use 240.0.0.0/4 -internally- as private RFC1918 address > space, who's preventing them from doing so? As long as there are no route > leaks for any of this to the outside world, I don't see the issue/problem. A very good, brief summary:

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:04 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > At HE, we found a huge uptick in IPv6 sage certifications when we handed out > T-shirts. Perhaps a “My resources are signed… Are yours?” kind of T-shirt > might > help. This is exactly what APNIC folks actually did in Daejeon this February,

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 5, 2019, at 19:58 , Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > > In message > Michel Py wrote: > >> Let's not forget the core reason we are in this squatting mess : >> Because the attempts to transform what was Class E (240.0.0.0/4) into >> private address space have been torpedoed. >> We

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 4, 2019, at 21:41 , Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > > In message > Michel Py wrote: > >> And now this comes, which is going to scare the bleep out of everyone who >> has to deal with these issues in the real world. > > You say that like it's a bad thing. > > If univeral RPKI

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 4, 2019, at 15:02 , Marilson Mapa wrote: > > > I have no opposition to doing something if we can get a proposal that > > offers something that ARIN can do. > > The first step must be to identify what ARIN can do and accept what is > > beyond ARIN’s mandate and capabilities. > >

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 4, 2019, at 19:08 , Jimmy Hess wrote: > > On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 8:10 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: >> On Sat, May 4, 2019, 4:28 AM Marilson Mapa wrote: >> >> Let's be honest here. RPKI, BGPSec and BGP roles could help resolving the >> issue of hijacking. >> This initiative would

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

>> Michel Py wrote : >> Result : IPv4 is still there, and now we have a mess. Had Class E become an >> extension >> of RFC1918, we would not have it because large folk who needed a bigger >> private space >> than 10/8 would have been quite happy with 240/4 (16 consecutive Class A). >> Another

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message wrote: >Let's not forget the core reason we are in this squatting mess : >Because the attempts to transform what was Class E (240.0.0.0/4) into >private address space have been torpedoed. >We have a block of 268 million IP addresses that would have been perfect >for that, and that

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

>> Michel Py wrote: >> And now this comes, which is going to scare the bleep out of everyone who >> has to deal with these issues in the real world. > Ronald F. Guilmette wrote : > You say that like it's a bad thing. It is, because you scare the wrong guys. Instead of scaring the bad guys, you

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message wrote: >And now this comes, which is going to scare the bleep out of everyone who >has to deal with these issues in the real world. You say that like it's a bad thing. If univeral RPKI deployment is really The Solution, as many appear to claim, then maybe it's time that some folks

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Reply to self : I guess I failed my citizenship test :-( The 18th amendment was the prohibition, the 21st the one that repealed it. Spank away. > Töma Gavrichenkov wrote : > Let's be honest here.  RPKI, BGPSec and BGP roles could help resolving the > issue of hijacking. This > initiative would

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> Töma Gavrichenkov wrote : > Let's be honest here.  RPKI, BGPSec and BGP roles could help resolving the > issue of hijacking. This > initiative would tame it a bit at best, but must not be seen as anything > close to a silver bullet. > Actually, one of the strongest concerns of mine with this

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 8:10 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > On Sat, May 4, 2019, 4:28 AM Marilson Mapa wrote: > > Let's be honest here. RPKI, BGPSec and BGP roles could help resolving the > issue of hijacking. > This initiative would tame it a bit at best, but must not be seen as anything >

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> I have no opposition to doing something if we can get a proposal that offers something that ARIN can do. > The first step must be to identify what ARIN can do and accept what is beyond ARIN’s mandate and capabilities. Owen, this is a position that will certainly be supported by all who have

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 3, 2019, at 14:48 , Carlos Friaças via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 3 May 2019, John Curran wrote: > > (...) >> Hank - >> >> Yes, ARIN could add a statement to that effect to the registration services >> agreement ? note that the granting of rights to the address block in

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Hi John Santos, *> Your definition of terrorism is very very different from mine.* I suggest you do not limit this definition to what the media impose on us daily. Using the examples you cited: If someone, via social network or any other vehicle, urges people not to take a vaccine he may be the

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

I echo RFG and Larry’s comments. As an ARIN member organisation I find these comments highly inappropriate and urge anyone who feels the same to file a complaint via the AUP process that John outlined. Sent from my iPhone > On 4 May 2019, at 14:08, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > > In message

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 3, 2019, at 10:13 , Carlos Friaças via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > On Fri, 3 May 2019, Andrew Bagrin wrote: > >> I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting involved >> to help resolve the issue of hijacking? I don’t accept the premise of the

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message <508d6c0e-d112-41f3-8109-5f3b7656d...@mwtcorp.net>, Larry Ash wrote: >This is totally out of bounds and name calling. I ask the arin staff remove >this person from the list. I concur. There are serious issues being discussed here, upon which serious people may have legitimately

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Larry - Please file a report of potential violation as documented in the ARIN AUP , and the Mailing List AUP Committee will review for possible action. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

This is totally out of bounds and name calling. I ask the arin staff remove this person from the list. Larry Ash Mountain West Telephone > On May 3, 2019, at 7:27 PM, Marilson Mapa wrote: > > "The proponents of this proposal want you to think this proposal only affects > hijackers. That is

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On 4 May 2019, at 1:13 PM, Hank Nussbacher mailto:h...@efes.iucc.ac.il>> wrote: You're barking up the wrong tree here. ARIN can't exercise any authority the network operators don't consent to it exercising. It's that simple... and that complicated. You have to convince a usefully large number

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On 03/05/2019 20:10, John Curran wrote: On 3 May 2019, at 2:02 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: On 02/05/2019 21:06, John Curran wrote: It is certainly possible to change the rights provided with address block issuance to include routing responsibilities, but that’s a rather significant change

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On 04/05/2019 00:53, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:10 PM Hank Nussbacher > wrote: > On 02/05/2019 21:06, John Curran wrote: > > > > It is certainly possible to change the rights provided with address > > block issuance to include routing

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On 03/05/2019 19:26, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:03 AM Hank Nussbacher wrote: "ARIN hereby allocates to you an IP address block and hereby grants you sole permission to announce that address block to the Internet." Simple enough? Not that simple, really. Did you see the word

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

RPKI, BGPSec and other related stuff if a different thing from what this proposal suggests. While the first ones are operational stuff, therefore how each one operates and although advised and good practice is always completely optional and discretionary to each network the second is not

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Sat, May 4, 2019, 4:28 AM Marilson Mapa wrote: > I'm curious why do you not want to let ARIN try to start getting involved > to help resolve the issue of hijacking? > Let's be honest here. RPKI, BGPSec and BGP roles could help resolving the issue of hijacking. This initiative would tame it

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Your definition of terrorism is very very different from mine. Where is anyone here threatening life or limb or freedom of anyone here or of any innocent third parties? On 5/3/2019 09:27 PM, Marilson Mapa wrote: /"The proponents of this proposal want you to think this proposal only affects

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

o: Marilson Mapa > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP > Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation > > I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting involved > to help resolve the issue of hijacki

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

*"The proponents of this proposal want you to think this proposal only affects hijackers. That is not the case, this proposal affects anyone who operates a router. It puts anyone who operates a router in jeopardy of losing their Internet resources."* The name of that, Mr. Farmer, is terrorism.

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 1:31 AM Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >The Internet doesn't exist, not in any legal sense... > Now that I know, I'm going to be applying to my landline provider > (which has also sold me "Internet service") for a BIG refund! Marketing BS *never* counts as a proper

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message William Herrin wrote: >The Internet doesn't exist, not in any legal sense... May I quote you? Now that I know, I'm going to be applying to my landline provider (which has also sold me "Internet service") for a BIG refund! Also, somebody should let these people know:

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On May 3, 2019, at 4:48 PM, Carlos Friaças wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2019, John Curran wrote: > (...) >> Hank - >> Yes, ARIN could add a statement to that effect to the registration services >> agreement ? note that the granting of rights to the address block in the >> registry is already present,

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Bagrin is the founder of MyDigitalShield (Omninet). He sells security. The worse, the better for his business. But he's here asking why people do not want to let ARIN help. He puts the interests of society in front of his business: "the heartbeat of America is really the small businesses”;

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Hi, On Fri, 3 May 2019, David Farmer wrote: Simply getting involved in hijacking is not what is proposed. And, by the way, ARIN and the other RIRs already are involved, heard of RPKI, IRR, etc...  You can't say the problem is being ignored.  Are these responses truly effective? Maybe not.

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:10 PM Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On 02/05/2019 21:06, John Curran wrote: > > > > It is certainly possible to change the rights provided with address > > block issuance to include routing responsibilities, but that’s a > > rather significant change compared to ARIN’s

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Fri, 3 May 2019, John Curran wrote: (...) Hank - Yes, ARIN could add a statement to that effect to the registration services agreement ? note that the granting of rights to the address block in the registry is already present, so it?s really the addition of the grant of "sole

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

lf Of Andrew Bagrin Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 10:05 AM To: Marilson Mapa Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation   I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Hi, On Fri, 3 May 2019, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:03 AM Hank Nussbacher wrote: "ARIN hereby allocates to you an IP address block and hereby grants you sole permission to announce that address block to the Internet." Simple enough? Not that simple, really. Effectively,

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation   I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting involved to help resolve the issue of hijacking?   Are you doing hijacking and don't want interference? Are you running a competitive service that

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message David Farmer wrote: >> The latter can generally be distinguished from the former via the passage >> of time. If an operator has been duly notified that he/she/it is >> announcing >> a route that he/she/it shouldn't be, and if there is no change after the >> passage of a number of

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:31 PM Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message tmx29hbrghizybsro-1n1...@mail.gmail.com> > David Farmer wrote: > > >The proponents of this proposal want you to think this proposal > >only affects hijackers. That is not the case, this proposal affects anyone > >who

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Now there is a constructive suggestion that I can easily support; create a system that monitors routing and actively notifies you when your routing doesn't conform to your published routing policy. There are and have been services that kind of do that, BGPmon, etc... But, they were more focused

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message David Farmer wrote: >The proponents of this proposal want you to think this proposal >only affects hijackers. That is not the case, this proposal affects anyone >who operates a router. It puts anyone who operates a router in jeopardy of >losing their Internet resources, for

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

In message <099db830-da2b-482e-b758-32e240018...@arin.net>, John Curran wrote: >The reason why is that ISPs have the ability to configure their routers as >they see fit, including deciding what routes they announce and what routes >they accept. If the community wants to infringe on this

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation Andrew, So far, I have seen lots of discussion of the issue but I have not seen a single concise coherent complete definition of the BGP hijacking problem that includes: * What technical mechanisms are used to create

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

If our engineers mistype an IP in the BGP advertisement, I would want a mechanism to notify me right away. Coming from ARIN would validate it's a real issue and not some random email that we all ignore. I personally do not see lynch mob. Punishment should only come with reluctant to comply. On

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

companies X and Y? Next example? Keith From: Andrew Bagrin [mailto:abag...@omninet.io] Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 12:41 PM To: Keith W. Hare Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation There are many examples

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

[speaking for myself] On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 10:05:15AM -0400, Andrew Bagrin wrote: > I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting > involved to help resolve the issue of hijacking? When I voted this out of scope for the NPRM, I said "I wish we were an enforcement entity,

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Simply getting involved in hijacking is not what is proposed. And, by the way, ARIN and the other RIRs already are involved, heard of RPKI, IRR, etc... You can't say the problem is being ignored. Are these responses truly effective? Maybe not. Do we need to do more? Probably. Is this the answer?

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Hi, On Fri, 3 May 2019, Andrew Bagrin wrote: I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting involved to help resolve the issue of hijacking? This is uncharted territory. Some people fear the unknown. Are you doing hijacking and don't want interference? I don't

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On 3 May 2019, at 2:02 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > On 02/05/2019 21:06, John Curran wrote: >> >> It is certainly possible to change the rights provided with address block >> issuance to include routing responsibilities, but that’s a rather >> significant change compared to ARIN’s present

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

the problem, but that may be because I do not > fully understand the problem. > > > > Keith > > > > *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew > Bagrin > *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2019 10:05 AM > *To:* Marilson Mapa > *Cc:* arin-p

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:03 AM Hank Nussbacher wrote: > "ARIN hereby allocates to you an IP address block and hereby grants you > sole permission to announce that address block to the Internet." > Simple enough? Not that simple, really. Effectively, the "Choice to revoke" suggested by the

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Bagrin Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 10:05 AM To: Marilson Mapa Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting involved to help resolve the issue of hijacking? Are you doing hijacking and don't want interference? Are you running a competitive service that you charge for? Does anyone believe there is a valid reason to hijack and advertise

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 2, 2019, at 06:57 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > El 2/5/19 15:11, "Joe Provo" > escribió: > > >[see Disclaimer] > >On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:30:38PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via > ARIN-PPML wrote: >

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On 02/05/2019 21:06, John Curran wrote: It is certainly possible to change the rights provided with address block issuance to include routing responsibilities, but that’s a rather significant change compared to ARIN’s present scope of operations. So issuing an address block via ARIN is

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Jordi, your interlocutor has just described paradise on Earth. It's all perfect, ARIN customers represent what's most ethical in mankind, ARIN is the ultimate perfection of efficiency and bad clients can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Throw away your prop-266 because it's totally

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

I think John already provided good information about this topic in the other message. What I have to say is that people believe in what normally makes them feel better, not necessarily in what it really is. The RIR Registry has ways to enforce its policies and is backed for that, even if it

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

The president of ARIN describes his institution as an RIR with appropriate and functional policies. This is what we can deduce from his speech whenever he describes the performance of his institution. This same attitude can be seen in RIPE. "Violation can have consequence". It seems that the

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On 2 May 2019, at 11:35 pm, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > There is no role, for example, for a government or anyone else to > come tell ATT, > Verizon, Level3, etc, what they are and are not allowed to put or have > in their routing tables, and furthermore, which internet standards > they have to

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 2, 2019, at 3:30 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > El 2/5/19 11:23, "Owen DeLong" mailto:o...@delong.com>> > escribió: > > Speaking only for myself... > > >> On May 2, 2019, at 00:55 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML >>

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

John, Thanks for clarifying! I'm biased by the RIPE NCC process, where everything reverts back to before the agreement was signed, service-wise (as i read it). Unless the holder agrees to move from LEGACY to ALLOCATED status, of course. I'll also doublecheck with RIPE NCC folks that

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

> On May 2, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Carlos Friaças via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > ... > It seems evident that a RIR can't revoke legacy space. Ever. Carlos - In the case of ARIN that would be incorrect, as ARIN has revoked legacy address space from parties that have violated registry policies. ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

Hi, It's not really an issue about the "global routing system". If an hijacker has a set of "target networks" and finds all of them in the same NAP/IXP, he just needs to join and inject the hijacks through the NAP/IXP, without any upstream involved. The problem here is effective use of

  1   2   >