On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Jacob Slater wrote:
Hello All,
Hi, Thanks for your input.
While I am in general support of the proposal?s ideas, I have several concerns with regards to the specific implementation.
While the idea of an a complaint form (with teeth) sounds appealing, I do not believe submission should be open to everyone. Only the party holding rights (as registered in a RIR) should be able to file a report regarding their own IP space.
I had thought about that too. The problem is hijackers tend to hijack space from: - unallocated space - companies which are unreachable (bankrupt/closed?) - networks in conflict (war) zones A variation of this will be allowing anyone _receiving_ the announcement of an hijacked prefix to file a complaint/report. Hijacks don't have to be seen by every network on the planet to be an hijack... And those receiving an hijacked prefix are (according to my dictionary) also victims.
If everyone is allowed to do so, we run several risks, namely that individuals with no knowledge of the situation (beyond that viewed in the public routing table) will file erroneous reports based on what they believe to be the situation (which may not be accurate, as some forms of permission for announcement are not documented in a way they could feasibly see).
Well, yes. That's one point... the IRR system is kind of broken. And RPKI, unfortunately is still taking baby steps. I would say that in case of doubt, then a rightful owner will be able to create a ROA for the suspected hijack....... Some might say NCC staff might act as a filter, before anything reaches expert's hands. I personally wish that NCC staff is not involved at all.
Allowing for competent complaints (with teeth) to be filed is a good idea; needlessly permitting internet vigilantes to eat management time based on a flawed view of the situation is not.
Maybe some automated checks? The reported prefix has a valid ROA, it matches, so, the complaint is most likely bogus? :-))
Additionally, while the policy does define a difference between accidental and intentional hijacking, it does not differentiate between the two with regards to policy violations.
I thought it did, by stating that accidental events are out of scope.
While some discretion should be left up to the expert, it seems odd to include this differentiation without simultaneously explicitly stating that accidental hijacking should generally be treated less severely.
Accidental hijacking should never be treated as a policy violation. It thought that was clear, but probably isn't -- despite section 3.0 and the summary. Sorry for that. Needs to be addressed in the next version.
I am by no means attempting to state that constant, unlearned-from mistakes should be overlooked; I am merely stating that the odd one-off event should be explicitly prohibited from bringing down an entire LIR. Fat fingering happens.
Yes, thus "This proposal aims to clarify that an intentional hijack is indeed a policy violation." Section 3.0 can be improved.
Finally, how does the proposed policy apply to sponsored resources (ASNs and PI space)? Is an entire LIR to be held accountable for sponsoring the resources for users who are otherwise supposed to be independent?
In short, no. Unless the "customer" is the LIR itself. Thanks. Best Regards, Carlos
Jacob Slater