On 2/1/12 8:43 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
Simple government regulation is of limited value, since the problem network 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! </snark> 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 anarchy. 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? -- DP