[arin-ppml] Hijackings

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <1FF55C04-0F29-41D3-8B78-2BDE71FAE0C6 at arin.net>, 
John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>On Apr 25, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> P.P.S.  For the benefit of everyone who will carp if I do not propose
>> some new policy in each and every posting I make to this list, here is
>> a proposed new policy:
>>
>>     If any legal entity (person, LLC, corporation, or whatever) is caught
>>     red-handed on two or more different occasions hijacking either ASNs
>>     or IP space which has not been assigned to the entity in question, th=
>en
>>     ARIN shall immediately revoke any and all number assignments it has
>>     made to said entity, and said entity will henceforth be forever and
>>     permanently banned from obtaining, from ARIN, any new number resource=
>s
>>     whatsoever.
>>
>> That's my proposal and I'm sticking to it.
>
>Ron - If you want to propose this...

I guess that you and I are working from different definitions of the word
``propose''.

Not only did I _want_ to propose it, I was under the impression that I
actually _had_ proposed it.

Admittedly, my proposal lacked fancy numbered headings, sub-headings,
Chapter titles, a table of figures (with circles & arrows on the back)
and all that fancy stuff, but it's still a proposal.

>please include one more paragraph that better defines "caught hijacking"...

As you wish...

"Caught hijacking" for IP address blocks means that the legal entity in
question is itself demonstratably announcing route(s) to the IP address
block in question AND that no evidence is proffered or forthcoming, within
a reasonably time frame (e.g. 1 week) which would reasonably support a
claim that either:

    (a) the IP block in question is currently assigned to the legal entity in
	question, or else

    (b) that the legal entity to which the block(s) were actually assigned had
        given its explicit consent to the legal entity that is actually
	announcing routes to the block(s) in question to make or perform
	such announcement(s).

"Caught hijacking" for an ASNs means that the legal entity in question is
itself demonstratably announcing one or more routes via the ASN in question
AND that no evidence is proffered or forthcoming, within a reasonably time
frame (e.g. 1 week) which would reasonably support a claim that either

    (a) the ASN in question is currently assigned to the legal entity in
	question, or else

    (b) that the legal entity to which the ASN was actually assigned had
	given its explicit consent to the legal entity that is actually
	announcing routes via the ASN in question to make or perform such
	announcement(s).

>That will significantly aid in implementation.

I can see how that might be the case, yes.

>> Note that the above proposal, if adopted, would still not result in ARIN
>> becoming in any sense the "router police".
>
>See above.

ARIN does not now, and would not, under this proposal, have its hands on the
proverbial switches, knobs, and dials of any routers anywhere.  As now, it
could not tell anybody what to route or conversely what not to.  (The
community quite clearly opposes any such control on ARINs part and this
proposal would do nothing to change the fact that ARIN does not own or
operate any routers, other than its on in-house ones.

Under this proposal however, ARIN would be empowered to actually observe,
take note of, and act upon what is really going on out here, but only in-
sofar as its data base and its present and future allocations are concerned
(just as currently).


Regards,
rfg