[LACNIC/Politicas] Defining routing abuse

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Arturo,

This is wrong, not going into the nits, but the main broken concept that you have about how RIPE works.

In RIPE community (equivalent to LACNIC community), we deal with policies, in an equivalent way.

The only difference is that in LACNIC the only "WG" for the PDP is this list.

In RIPE, we distribute the "work-load" in different WGs, but ALL THEM use the SAME PDP, and all them DO policies, which are the SAME for all the RIPE community and that RIPE NCC applies (as equivalent to LACNIC association).

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

El 12/4/19 14:04, "Politicas en nombre de Arturo Servin" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de arturo.servin at gmail.com> escribió:

    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
    >
    _______________________________________________
    Politicas mailing list
    Politicas at lacnic.net
    https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
    



**********************************************
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.