[anti-abuse-wg] Clarification Regarding Needs Assessment and Audits
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Clarification Regarding Needs Assessment and Audits
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Clarification Regarding Needs Assessment and Audits
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Sat Aug 31 15:18:18 CEST 2013
Nothing against all of romania but there appears to be more than one rogue operation there that used to hand out quite a few /15 v4 netblocks to US based spammers and are now registering quite a lot of /32 v6 netblocks --srs (htc one x) On 31-Aug-2013 6:05 PM, "Elvis Velea" <elvis at velea.eu> wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > Firstly, any member (LIR) can receive by default a /32 (up to a /29) > ALLOCATION and NOT assignment. It's a /48 PI assignment that you can get if > you are not an LIR. > > Secondly, @Suresh - have a look at who is leading the world in IPv6 > deployment and then you may want to be careful with trowing stones at > Romania. > Romania IS and has been for at least one year the leader in IPv6 > deployment in the whole world, if you are badmouthing Romania for it's > spam, try to praise it for it's IPv6 deployment, that would be fair. > > My 2 cents, > Elvis Daniel Velea (proud Romanian) > > > On 8/31/13 7:11 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> I was starting to wonder whether anybody else with an operational >> antispam and security role for a large provider was around here. :) >> >> Thanks for chiming in, vijay. At a guess those v6 /32s are all >> registered in Romania? >> >> --srs >> >> On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Vijay Eranti (✌ విజయ్ ఈరంటి) wrote: >> >> i agree with suresh's assessment. >> >> Lately lot of spammers are getting /32 ipv6 assignments with their >> own ASNs and having a nice run. >> The ipv4 allotment is seriously broken in ripe - just having >> paperwork with valid forms filled is good enough to allot what ever >> range the spammers can ask. >> >> regards >> vijay >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> <ops.lists at gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> 'ops.lists at gmail.com');>> wrote: >> >> The lack of progress is simply because you have very few people >> who are in a security rather than IP admin or network ops role. >> Security as in for a seriously large provider. >> >> The other lack of progress - well, changing entrenched policies, >> or enforcing them beyond a point where the enforcer is reluctant >> to investigate (or is it "play police" according to the local >> meme) is as tough as it sounds. >> >> >> On Friday, July 5, 2013, Frank Gadegast wrote: >> >> Sascha Luck wrote: >> >> TTBOMK, as long as policy requirements are fulfilled >> there is no mandate to revoke resources. >> >> >> Any spammer on this list (think so, simply because >> of the lack of progress) ? >> >> * Im starting now a second carrier in renting all >> the IPv4 addresses left in our allocation exclusively >> to abusers and make a lot of money with it. >> Just make offers now. * >> >> Will surely put a working abuse contact email address >> in RIPEs db, that gets directed to /dev/null >> and have a correct postal address somewhere on >> a funny island ... >> >> And it looks like if nobody could ever do anything >> against it. >> >> The current regulations are simply slippery as >> an eel (like we say in Germany), no way >> to catch anybody responsible. Again, ridicolous ... >> >> >> Kind regards, Frank >> -- >> PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de >> Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast >> mailto:frank at powerweb.de >> Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 >> 33200 52920 <tel:%2B49%2033200%2052920> >> 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 >> 33200 52921 <tel:%2B49%2033200%2052921> >> ==============================** >> __============================**==__========== >> >> >> >> -- >> --srs (iPad) >> >> >> >> >> -- >> --srs (iPad) >> > > -- > Kind regards, Elvis Velea > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130831/933f8cc3/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Clarification Regarding Needs Assessment and Audits
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Clarification Regarding Needs Assessment and Audits
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]