de-peering for security sake

Mon Jan 18 05:21:22 UTC 2016

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:39:52 -0500, bzs at 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...)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160118/e6df53a3/attachment.sig>