[LACNIC/Politicas] Los secuestros BGP constituyen una violación de las políticas - LAC-2019-5
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Fri Apr 12 08:11:21 -03 2019
(please see inline)
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Let's go back to the Pakistan Telecom/Google case...
> The correct way of doing a ban to Google services for users within
> Pakistan would have been filtering. Instead by hijacking Google's routes,
> the communication between Google and networks in other countries was also
> My point is:
> No rule in place -- fine, we can go with hijacking or filtering to
> accomplish the govt/court order.
> Rule in place -- hijacking is not admissible, we need to use filtering.
> Unfortunately there wasn't a rule in place, so Pakistan Telecom chose the
> wrong approach :/
> First, we do not know for fact what Pakistan Telecom wanted to do.
Yes, they were only trying to follow orders...
> It could have just a static route or a filter that went
Fat fingers, OK... could be.
> Second, IMO it is very naive to think that a "rule" in a RIR would avoid a bad actor to do something bad.
The prevention rate will not be 100%, as there is no law that can fully
prevent a crime.
The bad actor today, just knows there are no consequences, because there
is no "rule", or "norm".
If there was a rule, he/she might need to look at the risk of doing it.
> Third, RIR policies are not "rules", neither protocols, domain names,
> etc. Those are norms that we chose to follow to guarantee
> that the Internet works well.
...and as safe as possible for everyone?
I'm OK with calling it a "norm", instead of a "rule".
> These works because there is a large mass of people deciding to use. In
> the moment that most of those decide to use an alternate root, an
> alternate IP protocol or an alternate numbers registry we would have a
> fractioned Internet and no "rule" or policy would stop that.
There are already fractioned Internets.
Hijacking of resources is in fact aiding that, reducing the RIR system's
> Fourth, as said many times. There are places to define some norms, to
> say that the use of an number resource is good or bad it is a policy
> decision that has no room in the RIRs policy manual as this is for
> allocation, assignment and administration of number resources, not its
"administration" may have different concepts to different people.
My concept of "administration" includes doing something about members
that wrongly use resources held by other members (hiding behind borders
and different jurisdictions).
> Possibly in another forum, possibly operational, related to law
> enforcement, Internet policy, etc. but not here.
That's a good point:
+ Which other forum? ICANN? IETF? IGF? ITU-T?
I don't have an answer for that, as i do believe the RIR system (as a
whole) is where some difference can be made.
More information about the Politicas