nanog mailing list archives
Re: SORBS on autopilot?
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:37:12 -0500
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:47 EST, Jed Smith said:
The vibe I got from a number of administrators I talked to about it was "why would a standards document assume an IPv4/IPv6 unicast address is a residential customer with a modem, forcing those with allocations to prove that they are not residentially allocated rather than the other way around?"
What percent of allocated globally routed IP addresses are residential endpoints, and what percent are in data centers? What's the better base assumption if your goal is "I don't want to talk to address ranges that are full of botted boxes"? There's a *reason* why "default deny" is a well-known security policy.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- SORBS on autopilot? Ken Chase (Jan 11)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Larry Smith (Jan 11)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Ken Chase (Jan 11)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Jon Lewis (Jan 11)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Jed Smith (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Jon Lewis (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Steven Champeon (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Jed Smith (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Brian Keefer (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Rich Kulawiec (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Brian Keefer (Jan 13)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Jed Smith (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? JC Dill (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Ricky Beam (Jan 14)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Larry Smith (Jan 11)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Steven Champeon (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Dave Martin (Jan 12)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Jed Smith (Jan 12)