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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Michael,
 

El 27/4/19 1:12, "Michael Sinatra" <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> escribió:

    On 2019-04-26 13:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML wrote:
    > Hi Owen,
    > 
    > So, you believe that if an ARIN member is repeatedly misusing the resources from another member, is just fine and the ARIN membership which rules are the policies, should not care about this behavior and members should not get their exclusive rights to use their allocated resources protected by policies?
    
    Whether or not something is right or wrong is orthogonal to the question
    of whether ARIN membership status should be used to enforce that thing.
     Is it the intent of this proposal to exempt legacy holders from
    commonly-accepted BGP routing norms?  Clearly not, but by placing the
    onus of enforcement on ARIN, that's the effect that it has.
    
    A related and very basic problem is that it's not clear where in NRPM
    (or *if* in NRPM) the policy text belongs.

I don't think this is a problem. It is part of the PDP discussion to agree on that. Possibly a new specific section. This is what we do with new topics that aren't about modification of existing part of the NRPM, at least in other RIRs.
    
    While I am supportive of the idea of preventing BGP hijacks, I am
    strongly opposed to placing that under ARIN's purview.  And from a
    practical perspective, I don't want the RIRs to have to go through
    expense and possible legal exposure of having to adjudicate cases of
    alleged hijacking.  The best the RIRs can do is to encourage and create
    incentives for RPKI and other techniques that are actually reasonable
    for a *registry* to support.  Let's put our energy into that.
    
    Opposed as written.
    
    michael
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.