[191526] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Defensive" BGP hijacking?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Tue Sep 20 10:48:51 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4B48ECB7-5878-4F8D-8E9E-0B010A6D8F43@arin.net>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:48:45 -0400
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:05 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:58 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com=
>
> wrote:
> >
> > (caution! I don't really think arin is evil!)
>
> Nor do I=E2=80=A6 (but I will remind folks that organizations evolve bas=
ed on
> participation,
> so ongoing diligence and involvement is definitely warranted.)
>
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
> >
> >> To be clear, he would still end up bound to an agreement which provide=
s
> >> that they
> >> indemnify the RIR regarding their RPKI usage (which was the complaint
> >> expressed
> >> in the NANOG community regarding ARIN=E2=80=99s RPKI terms and conditi=
ons) -
> >>
> >>
> > maybe, but his point was that the evil (evile?) arin would not be putti=
ng
> > their clutches on his ip-address-spaces... Sure he's trading ARIN for
> RIPE
> > here, but I diidn't think the RPA bit was his concern as much as the LR=
SA
> > and 'now that you agree these are ip blocks are subject to the legacy
> > registry services agreement, we (arin - with twisty mustasche) might
> decide
> > to wrest them away from you!!!<muahahahahaa!>=E2=80=99
>
> A distinct possibly, but much improved in the current LRSA (and RSA, whic=
h
> are the same document at this point.) Unless he=E2=80=99s planning to n=
ot pay the
> annual maintenance fee and ignore the notices and letters that follow ove=
r
> the next 120 days, or if going to make a serious misrepresentation in the
> process of claiming the rights to the address block, he=E2=80=99s fairly =
safe...
> for
> example, ARIN now specifically disclaims revocation for lack of
> utilization.
> (Furthermore, if ARIN breaches its obligations, the status of the address
> block reverts to the same prior to entry the LRSA =E2=80=93 this is defin=
itely less
> than RIPE provides, which is effectively exit at any time, but far better
> than
> the original LRSA.)
>
> If you want to just use your legacy address block (wth the same services
> that
> where in place at ARIN=E2=80=99s formation), then you don=E2=80=99t need =
to enter into an
> LRSA =E2=80=93
> but please do still update your registration in the ARIN registry to have
> current
> contact data, as this helps deter potential hijackers. If you want to
> have those
> services that were developed since ARIN=E2=80=99s formation, then I=E2=80=
=99d suggest
> reviewing
> the actual current LRSA agreement, as it is significantly improved over
> earlier
> versions.
>
>
and probably: "If you think there are still improvements, show up at arin
meetings and lobby for change"
yes?
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> [Evil?] ARIN
>
>
>
>
