[105564] in North American Network Operators' Group
uceprotect.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Drew Weaver)
Fri Jun 27 09:36:40 2008
From: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:36:30 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hello everyone, this is possibly off-topic here, not entirely sure.
I'm kind of confused about some of uceprotect's policies, they seem=
to require every IP address to have reverse DNS with matching forwards (wh=
ich works fine for a wireless/broadband/dial-up ISP, but not so much for a =
hosting company/datacenter). They seem to penalize companies who have many =
small allocations from ARIN/whomever while rewarding companies who have hug=
e swaths of IP addresses in single chunks. They don't seem to understand th=
at in a datacenter a single machine running virtuozzo/vmware can have any n=
umber of IPs assigned to it and that not everything can be so tightly scrip=
ted/controlled. They currently take issue with 106 out of almost 54,000 IP =
addresses and our AS appears to be listed in their list. That seems extreme=
to me. My question is, has anyone had a problem with uceprotect.net's syst=
em and then been able to satisfy their requirements on an ongoing basis? We=
'll obviously do whatever it takes because we really have no choice. We've =
found ISPs with over 100,000 IPs using their list(s) so obviously it has an=
impact.
Off-list is fine, sorry to bother anyone if this is off-topic.
Thanks for your time.
-Drew
