[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy

On Tuesday 08 March 2011 18.54, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 08/Mar/11 17:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote:
> >> Both [of "Broadband IP space" and "IPs used for email marketing"]
> >> could be true, although that would probably be the best choice.
> >> However, as we approach the point where obtaining IPv4 address
> >> space becomes more difficult I think we will have to accept that
> >> individual IPv4 addresses will share role much more frequently.
> > 
> > I guess.  But the allocation policies, whois requirements etc remain
> > substantially the same for ipv6.
> 
> This similarity should make less and less sense, as time goes by.
> How do users choose between IPv4 and IPv6 in case they have both?  In
> particular, DNSBLs are more difficult with IPv6, so it could make
> sense to kindly push users to sticking to IPv4 for _and only for_
> tasks that may benefit from DNSBLs, typically public MXes and email
> marketing.

I have no problem with blocklists ipv6. Larger chunks however :-)

I do have problem with abuse, where spam is the dominant factor, often
used as vehicle for other kinds of fraud.


> 
> 

-- 
        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. )