[LACNIC/Politicas] Defining routing abuse (fwd)

[Arturo Servin]

Just to note.

RIPE =! LACNIC

RIPE NCC ~ LACNIC but not the same

The anti-abuse WG is a group in RIPE, not RIPE NCC.

So, in that respect a RIPE WG that deals with operational issues as the
routing or anti-abuse would be the right place to discuss this, But not the
address policy wg that is the equivalent of this list.

As you can see, the scope of LACNIC vs RIPE is different.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe


Regards
as

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:16 PM Carlos Friaças via Politicas <
politicas at lacnic.net> wrote:

>
> FYI.
>
> This could also be an interesting read for those discussing LAC-2019-5
> (either supporting it or opposing it).
>
> Best Regards,
> Carlos
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:35:00
> From: Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com>
> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Cc: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas at fccn.pt>,
>      JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Subject: Defining routing abuse
>
> Peace,
>
> This is to continue the discussion around 2019-03. Here's our today's
> article about the ways some operators do traffic engineering:
> https://radar.qrator.net/blog/new-hijack-attack-in-the-wild
>
> Should that also be treated as a policy violation? This is clearly
> intentional.
>
> --
> Töma
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>