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

Thu May 23 13:02:51 EDT 2019

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 <owen at delong.com> escreveu:

>
>
> On May 7, 2019, at 7:46 PM, Marilson Mapa <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> 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 environment. I
> was there and I was already an adult, and this paradise only existed in the
> hippy communities sprinkled with marijuana.
>
> Actually, I visited such a place in 2005 as an adult.  The place was
> Naithon, Phuket, Thailand.
>
> It is not a hippy community at all and I did not encounter any Marijuana
> there. I’m sure it was probably available (it was illegal there at the
> time, but many laws in Thailand have rather limited enforcement and for the
> most part as long as you’re not harming anyone or making a fool of yourself
> in public it’s live and let live), but I wasn’t looking for it. I didn’t
> encounter the aroma of anyone else imbibing.
>
> Besides, I did not mention the creation of the Internet. Read again: “But
> the BGP has at its origin a critical design flaw.”
>
> BGP was created during a time in the internet before the WWW and before
> all of the problems it brought to the internet.
>
> In fact, BGP version 4 (the still current version) existed during this
> early time in the internet. I was there. I was an adult. I was running
> routers. You, by your own admission, were not running routers at the time,
> so perhaps accept that I know somewhat more about this history than you do.
>
> 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 to withstand the problems caused by
> the great growth of the Internet.
>
> Yes, I remember it well. BGP4’s major enhancement vs. prior versions was
> the introduction of CIDR to cope with the growth of the routing table. This
> was a problem encountered well before the frenzy of e-commerce, web sites,
> etc. Literally, people were still managing routers with Telnet. BARRnet was
> still propagating RIP announcements from their customers into BGP. The
> security model at the time on the internet was literally that of a small
> town where only good actors were expected to participate.
>
> I have a file with 1.3 GB of criminal attitudes from ISPs, Registrars and
> ICANN, protecting and hiding spammers and scammers. Scammers who were often
> the providers themselves. Since 2014 I have sent spam and scam reports to
> these institutions. There were hundreds of ISPs, and everyone, without
> exception, protected and concealed their customers. So keep these old
> wives’ tale for your grandchildren.
>
>
> On the internet back then, a lot happened in 8 years… BGP4 was introduced
> with RFC-4271 in 2006. We must consider the environment of that time when
> we are going to judge those who designed and built BGP4, not the
> environment of 2014.
>
>
> Ø  perhaps you would have a legitimate accusation
>
> One? I have 1.3 GB. You insist on disqualifying me for not having the
> technical competence to discuss these problems. Not being the professional
> that you are, is a reason for pride. If not, let's see: I am an architect
> and urban planner. I have been trained to provide comfort, security and
> well-being to people in their homes, workplaces, amusements and in multiple
> activities inside and outside the buildings. While your profession is
> marked by providing irritation and malaise to billions of people.))
>
> No, you have 1.3GB of accusations against bad actors on the internet 8+
> years after BGP4 was created. I am talking about your accusations against
> the designers of BGP4.
>
> Ø  I’m telling you that I don’t have good answers to those questions and
> that I believe the RIRs to be the wrong tool for the job.
> Ø  You are again mistaken.
>
> Ø  Yesterday was “out of scope” and today I believe it is still out of
> scope.
>
> It is outside the scope of the Registrars, it is outside the scope of the
> RIRs, it is outside the scope of ICANN ... It is out of the scope of all.
> Should we appeal to Pope Francis? Maybe to the Queen of England…
>
> It is in the scope of those who run routers… Find them in ISP fora and at
> the IETF.
>
> It is in the scope of the legislators who choose to regulate these things…
> Find them in whatever governmental structures apply in your locale.
>
> You say “registrars” and “RIRs” as if they are separate groups. The RIRs
> are the registrars/registries for numbers. If you’re talking about DNS
> registrars, then I’m not sure how they entered this thread as we’re talking
> about the hijacking of numbers and names do not enter the discussion.
>
> Since ICANN’s only role in numbers is to maintain the central free pool
> and pass large blocks of numbers to the RIRs upon validated request, I’m
> not sure what role you think they could have in addressing numbers
> hijacking, but please do explicate.
>
> I’m pretty sure this is out of scope for the Pope unless you want to pass
> laws governing the hijacking of numbers within the country known as the
> Vatican or set policies that Catholic Churches will not hijack other
> entity’s routes. (To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church for all
> it’s many foibles is not a significant source of BGP hijacking, someone
> please correct me if I’m wrong about that).
>
> I suppose the Queen of England could serve as your advocate in parliament
> if you convince her, but I suspect you’re more likely to have greater
> success in approaching MPs directly. Given your writing style, I suspect
> you should start with the house of commons, but you’re certainly free to
> contact the lords if that is your preference.
>
> This situation you created is very comfortable, is not it? When no one is
> responsible we have no one's land. Not the paradise you created in the 20th
> century. But your old wild far west of the 18th and 19th centuries. The
> insistence on not demanding ethical behavior from the community and respect
> for their AUPs and ToSs takes them to the police pages of the newspapers.
> The Economist coined the acronym BAADD for tech giants as a threat to
> democracy. I coined the acronym GGM21C - the Great Global Mafia of the 21st
> Century. The billionaires fines are being applied and the community insists
> on doing nothing.
>
> Actually, the situation I have described (not created) is not comfortable
> at all. If I can find a way that ARIN is responsible and can control the
> situation, then I can find a way that the problem can be solved relatively
> easily. Unfortunately, since I live in reality, I must describe the
> situation as it actually exists on the ground and not how we might imagine
> we wish it had been created.
>
> I have never said that no-one is responsible. I have said that those who
> run routers are responsible. Those who propoagate illegitimate
> advertisements are responsible. Those who originate illegitimate
> advertisements are responsible. Those who accept illegitimate
> advertisements are partially responsible and fully responsible if they pass
> them along to others. The one thing that ALL of those people who are
> responsible have in common… THEY RUN ROUTERS.
>
> I repeat: Mr. Ash's swamp is not on prop-266, it's on this corrupt
> internet that treats the population as beef cattle.
>
> I’m guessing this is some reference to Pokemon (based on brief Google
> search). Afraid I’m not familiar.
>
> In any case, it’s hard for me to understand what you mean by “this corrupt
> internet” since there is not really any single cohesive entity that can be
> called “the internet”. What we refer to for convenience as “the internet”
> is the very large collection of thousands (maybe even millions) of
> independently owned and operated networks that happen to use the same
> protocol and through a variety of mechanisms make it possible for packets
> from any node on any one of them to reach virtually any other node on any
> of the networks in question.
>
> Referring to “this corrupt internet” is kind of like referring to “this
> corrupt race” or “this corrupt society” or “this corrupt planet full of
> inhabitants”. It has no legitimate meaning.
>
> In any group so large, one will have a variety of actors. Whether any
> individual actor is good or bad is a value judgment made by individuals,
> laws, governments, courts, or others.
>
> Whether a society as a whole is corrupt is a much more difficult
> classification and is generally unlikely to be accurate in either direction
> due to the presence of both corrupt and non-corrupt individuals in any
> given group.
>
> Owen
>
> P.S. I don’t mind waiting two weeks for your reply… I’ll still be here.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190523/03d98274/attachment.htm>