nanog mailing list archives
Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:48:52 -0800
On Jan 9, 2013, at 20:18 , Mark Foster <blakjak () blakjak net> wrote:
On 10/01/13 17:15, Karl Auer wrote:On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 21:14 -0600, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:FYI - I have a PTR for all IPs. Just general practice.All IPs actually in use, or all possible IPs in a network? If the latter, then it's not gunna fly for IPv6. Not at all. Not unless you synthesise the responses - in which case there is no point to requiring them anyway. Regards, K.$GENERATE, as someone else pointed out, solves that problem for you? (Does it scale for IPv6? I can't recall - but surely this could be scripted too.)
Mental exercise... $GENERATE is a run-time macro which is parsed to create in-memory PTR records for all included entries. The end result in memory is identical to having typed in all of the PTR records in a zone file. If you're running a 64 bit architecture, you can, theoretically, address a 64-bit memory space. However, that would require each in-memory PTR record to fit in 1 byte and you would have no room remaining for little silly inconsequential things like forward zones, the DNS server software, the operating system, the network stack, etc. This assumes, of course, that you have maxed out your RAM to a full 18,000+ petabytes (which I tend to doubt). If not, then, you don;t even have enough RAM for 1 byte per PTR record. I know PTR records can theoretically be pretty compressible, but I doubt you can get below 1 byte/record even with the best of compression algorithms. Real time synthesis (synthesis on request) according to something similar to $GENERATE might be feasible, but $GENERATE as implemented does not scale to IPv6.
I though the point of doing so was to establish with some degree of accuracy that there were 'real people' behind the administration of said IP, and that there was a somewhat increased level of accountability as a result - which suggests there is infact a point.
I'll leave the flaws in that theory as an exercise to the reader. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats, (continued)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats John Levine (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats John R. Levine (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Mark Andrews (Jan 09)
- PTRs for IPv6 (was Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats) Lee Howard (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Måns Nilsson (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats John Levine (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Robert Bonomi (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Tony Finch (Jan 11)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats JP Viljoen (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Owen DeLong (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Julian DeMarchi (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Rich Kulawiec (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Barry Shein (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Julian DeMarchi (Jan 09)