[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy

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)