Hi,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:23:16PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
I just read the Regulation you mentioned but I fail to see how this would even apply to anything mentioned in this discussion...
That's why I asked a lawyer. In simple words: The NCC is vulnerable to court orders from anywhere within the EU.
I understand that if anyone in the EU enters into an agreement with the RIPE NCC then they can bring the RIPE NCC to court if they break the agreement. I still fail to see how this affects the case where governments want to tell the RIPE NCC to take a certain action...
Ah, ok. But since your assumption is invalid (there is no default, and the quick-start examples which would probably be used for such a "lazy default" are completely different from what you assume) then your case isn't very interesting to discuss any further.
[citation needed]
In random order: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/certification/router-co... http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/command/bgp-m1.html#... http://lacnic.net/documentos/lacnicxv/rpki/2BGP-Origin-Validation.pdf http://m.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/38258/RPKI_Deployment_LACNIC.... http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.2/topics/topic-map/bgp-origin-... And from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/configuration/xe-3s/...: "You can allow an invalid prefix to be used as the BGP best path, even if valid prefixes are available. This is the default behavior."
There may not be a default *yet*, but there will be and it will be "drop if invalid/missing" because that is much easier to understand ifor the decision-makers than localprefs, metrics, etc.
Ok, now you are making even more unfounded assumptions. Please stop
Well, if you can see the future any better than I, please enlighten us.
I'm not the one claiming "There may not be a default *yet*, but there will be". *You* claim to see the future -> *you* provide evidence. - Sander