[LACNIC/Politicas] Los secuestros BGP constituyen una violación de las políticas - LAC-2019-5

Fri Apr 12 11:57:40 -03 2019

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Mike Burns wrote:

(...)
> As to your comments about the relationship between my personal business and
> my views on this matter, although ad hominem, I will address them. You are

Hi,

It was not my intention in any way to issue a comment ad hominem.
I think i said i don't see support from the IP trading sector.
I come from the research & education sector, so i don't know all the 
inner components of the IP trading sector.

> correct in pointing out that hijacking is an evil that impacts brokers very
> severely. As a network operator as well as broker, I am first in line in the
> fight against spammers and hijackers. I am sure I have devoted more
> resources in this fight than you are aware of.

Certainly. Although LAC-2019-5 is exclusively about hijacks.

> But LACNIC is a community setup to act as steward of address regulation and
> should not seek to extend its stewardship beyond its original remit. My
> objection to this policy lies in that simple statement.

So, it's OK to determine N% of the address space allocated is to be used 
within the region, but it's not OK to determine as "forbidden" that a 
member uses another member's resources. Understood.

> It should not be read as any kind of support for the bane of prefix 
> hijacking.  I think I have made my point clear and it has been made, no 
> doubt more clearly, by others in Spanish. So this will end my input and 
> any additional confusion it has engendered.

To make it clear, i didn't understand your opposition to the proposal as 
support for hijacks. As i don't understand it in relation to any other 
list members.

What i understand is the main argument: this isn't the place (which i 
something i disagree with).

Regards,
Carlos

> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> Hi,
> (sorry, again in english)
>
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>> This discussion reminds me of the AFRINIC "Anti-shutdown" proposal of
> 2017.
>> That proposal also asked an RIR to define good and bad behavior, and deal
> with it in policy.
>> In that case it was the decision of an African country to shutdown
> Internet access.
>
> It is a different issue.
>
> A government or court has the jurisdiction to decide that. When doing this
> they can affect communications between inside their country to the outside,
> but ordering a disconnection is not the same thing as impersonating foreign
> networks.
>
> 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
> affected.
>
> 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 :/
>
>
>
>> In this LACNIC case, it is about prefix hijacking.
>
> I'm yet to read from someone that hijacking (be it prefixes or ASNs) is
> something that can be tolerated.
>
>
>
>
>> In the AFRINIC case, the policy was eventually withdrawn.
>> I believe this is because members realized that RIRs are not the
>> appropriate place to address these sorts of issues.
>
> The issue and aim of that proposal, as i understand it, was:
>
> A government/court will not be allowed to determine that it's own
> population is cut off from the Internet.
>
> So, to me, it was a jurisdiction issue. And RIR rules can't superseed
> country's laws...
>
> On the hijacking front, the issue is different. A country can make rules
> to block access to certain networks, what it can't do is disrupting
> communications from *OTHER* countries to a foreign network (because it
> doesn't have any jurisdiction over any of the ends...)
>
>
>
>> I think that this is also the case with the LACNIC policy under
>> discussion, and I add my voice to those who are obviously against route
>> hijacking, but who are against this policy.
>
> It's specially intriguing for me to see people from the IP trading
> business not fighting fiercely against hijacks, because hijacks completely
> undermine the IP trading business value (and reduce the potential
> customer-base...).
>
> We have also seen a case or two of hijackers who happen to try to join
> the IP trading business, and i would expect companies who have a long and
> good track record on this business to want hijackers (or companies doing
> hijacks) away as possible from their business sector.
>
>
> Regards,
> Carlos
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Mike Burns
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of Alejandro
> Guzman
>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:59 AM
>> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
> <politicas at lacnic.net>
>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Los secuestros BGP constituyen una
> violación de las políticas - LAC-2019-5
>>
>> Jordi el que varios no estemos de acuerdo con esta política no significa
> que hay que irse a los extremos que dices.
>>
>>
>>
>> El jue., 11 de abril de 2019 11:52 a. m., JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
> Politicas <politicas at lacnic.net> escribió:
>>
>>> Comprendido, entonces tendremos que revisar todos los puntos del
>>> manual de políticas que hace los mismo en otros aspectos.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No podemos tener criterios diferentes para diferentes textos del manual.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ¡Esto es tabú y de esto no hablamos!
>>>
>>>
>>> Saludos,
>>>
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El 11/4/19 17:46, "Arturo Servin" <arturo.servin at gmail.com> escribió:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:33 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas <
>>> politicas at lacnic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> RIR y comunidad no es lo mismo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, no son lo mismo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El RIR opera bajo los principios (politicas) que define la comunidad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Insisto, debemos explicar porque hay cosas que creemos que en el
>>> manual se deben hacer mas explicitas, para evitar diferentes puntos de
>>> vista, y lo que es obvio para unos u otros, y en cambio estamos en
>>> contra de poner en el manual, que es para la comunidad, algo con lo
>>> que parece que todos estamos de acuerdo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Algunos creemos que hay cosas que no se deben de explicar, como que es
>>> bueno y que es mal uso de un recurso.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eso lo debe definir otra comunidad, la de NOGs, de estandares
>>> tecnicos, etc. No la comunidad del RIR.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No lo veo y menos cuando hay una ristra de +1 afirmando que estamos de
>>> acuerdo ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> De acuerdo con:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Que el RIR no es el lugar para definir que es bueno o malo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alguien puede argumentar que daño se produce al RIR o a la comunidad
>>> explicitando algo obvio?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Que no es el papel del RIR!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Saludos
>>>
>>> as
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>