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

[Jimmy Hess]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 1:58 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
The petition seems hopelessly frivolous in this case.

Not only is the proposal quite clearly outside the scope of the PDP,
because it lists procedures and methods of implementing the "policy",
and also outside of the scope of  what Number Policy is and what number
policy can do   (Attempting to define ARIN policies  within a proposal
which are unrelated to matters regarding the Allocation/Assignment,
Maintenance, or  Stewardship of number resources),

But IMO it is also clearly outside of the scope of ARIN's role in a few ways,
First  []1.  Presuming to have authority over Unallocated IP addresses
such as Rfc1918 space,  which remain with IANA or other registries
 ARIN has not even been given to assign, and,  has no stewardship role over,
And,
beyond what authority and scope ARIN has under members'
 Registry Services Agreements;
ARIN has no authority to dictate how a subscriber's business may operate
regarding matters that are unrelated to the allocation and assignment of the
number resources which ARIN administers  --  Number Resource Policy
determines how IP and AS numbers are to be allocated.

A "violation" of Number Resource Policy should be impossible -- ARIN is
supposed to implement the number resource policy;   The only way that
a number policy can be "violated" is if ARIN makes an improper allocation,
fails to reclaim a returned allocation, or a subscriber committed fraud,  and
the failure to pay their bills or commission of a fraud is the only way that an
"enforcement" action could be taken  ---  The proposal refers to "violation"
of policy that cannot exist.

Whether a particular router on the internet may be involved in generating what
someone else considers to be BGP Hijacking  is not related to an IP number
resource allocation or assignment ---  by definition,  if they are
hijacking, then
they are not using IP numbers that were assigned as part of a contract,
therefore ARIN has no jurisdiction to arbitrate this -- ARIN is not a court or
law enforcement.

Particularly; if two providers wish to establish peering,  and they
wish to announce
unallocated RFC1918 IP space between them -- As a monopoly source for IP
allocations ARIN has no right to intervene in nor impair these providers'
private business relationships;   ARIN is also not an arbitrator and not a
court of law,  and ARIN has no right to arbitrate whatever dispute(s)
between two
providers might arise,  unless they had already agreed to that, etc.

ARIN's role is to provide Allocation/Assignment of IP numbers and AS numbers;
and maintenance of the registry;  not to establish or decide
operational practices
or policy of various network service providers.


> Speaking only as a member of the community and based only on my understanding
> of the PDP from reading it on the ARIN web site. If ARIN staff, the board,
> or the chair of the AC have a differing opinion, my words below should
> be considered in err.
--
-JH