[anti-abuse-wg] Question regarding IP address abuse

On Friday 17 December 2010 21.59, Kong Posh Bhat wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
>  
> 
> We are trying to develop an architecture that is based around the
> premise that there is a special purpose local HTTPS server with a well
> known address.  We intend to reserve the port number with IANA and
> define a well known local address in each of the following address
> spaces: 10.0.0.0, 172.16.0.0, 192.168.0.0, as well as in some private
> IPv6 address ranges.
> 
>  
> 
> When a device comes up, as part of its startup logic it tries all these
> well known addresses one by one, until there is a hit.  If there is no
> hit, the process terminates.  However, if there is a hit, the device
> will make a special HTTPS request to this server, which in turn will
> deliver some management bootstrapping information to the device.
> 
>  
> 
> One of my distinguished colleagues thinks that this constitutes an IP
> address abuse.  Is that so?  I do not seem to find any reference to this
> on the IANA Abuse FAQ site (http://www.iana.org/abuse/faq.html).   
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks in anticipation.  I really appreciate your patience with me on
> this issue.
> 

I'm not a ripe representative.  I do however have a suggestion :

why don't you send a multicast packet to a known multicast address ?  That way
a client with any address ( not only 1918 ones) be functionally equivalent

The range would be limited by the networks multicast config, but you could always
reach a server on your local wire.



>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kong Posh Bhat
> 
> Standards Research Lab
> 
> Samsung Telecommunications America
> 
> Ph:  972-761-7450 (Desk); 214-766-1743 (Mobile)
> 
> Fax: 972-761-7631
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 

-- 
        Peter Håkanson   

        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
        ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )