[187068] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: de-peering for security sake
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Jan 18 00:21:37 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: bzs@theworld.com
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <22172.13400.899948.1320@pcls8.std.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:21:22 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1453094482_2243P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500, bzs@theworld.com said:
> How about if backed by an agreement with the 5 RIRs stating no new
> resource allocations or transfers etc unless a contract is signed and
> enforced? Or similar.
Then they'd just resort to hijacking address space.
Oh wait, they already do that and get away with it....
(And a threat of withholding IP address space from long-haul providers isn't as
credible - they have much less need for publicly routed IP addresses than
either eyeball farms or content farms, so you'll have to find some other way to
motivate them to not accept a hijacked route announcement...)
--==_Exmh_1453094482_2243P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001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=Y4kj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1453094482_2243P--
