[#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)
dave.nanog at alfordmedia.com
Fri Feb 3 05:01:45 UTC 2012
On 2/1/12 8:43 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>Simple government regulation is of limited value, since the problem
>may be overseas.
So government regulation won't work....
>What the internet really needs is Tier1 and Tier2 providers participating
>in the internet who "care", regardless of the popularity or size of
>netblocks or issues involved.
...and all we need is for billion-dollar corporations to start putting
moral rectitude ahead of profits.
Well, heck, that should start happening any day now! And then FedEx will
deliver my unicorn!
IMO, as long as the consequences for address hijacking boil down to "a
bunch of nerds will be unhappy with you," of COURSE we will continue to
see more hijackings. It's profitable (for spammers and other criminals)
and there is no shortage of sociopaths in this world. If there were a
chance of coordinated shunning of those upstreams that tolerate hijacking
then the moral rectitude/profits calculus would change, but there is no
such chance. So we're left with coordinated governmental action, RPKI, or
A thought experiment: Imagine this happens in IPv6 space. Absent the
element of scarcity, does it become simpler to just get more IPs for your
legitimate company than to spend time fighting with the thieves and their
collection of negligent or colluding upstreams? And what does that do for
the Internet if more and more companies decide to just abandon their V6
space to the squatters rather than contesting it?
More information about the NANOG