[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 12:33:40 CET 2011
I am aware of Levine's draft and it makes more sense than most things I've read on this. But that's putting the cart a bit before the horse in this discussion - which is about trying to ensure that spammers don't get /32 and larger v6 netblocks with the same ease they're acquiring /15s and /16s. As for IPs behind carrier grade NAT - just how many of those do you see operating smtp servers? :) thanks --srs On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> wrote: > > Yes, it is obviously possible. But discovering the right granularity > and transmitting it to clients is problematic. For a possible > solution see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-iprangepub . > > OTOH, IPv4 extensively uses NAT, so that blocking the wrong IP may > affect an entire network behind it. Traditional DNSBLs would be safer > without such widespread use of NAT, which can be taken down using IPv6. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]