[114301] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Minnesota to block online gambling sites?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim deleskie)
Tue May 5 19:24:42 2009
In-Reply-To: <d99aaed40905051118j898850bmeecbe4d8e3a3f9b3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 20:24:25 -0300
From: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
To: Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Not only do we create "less usable" v4 address space, if these guys
had a clue, and what ever you think of them with $$ envolved clue will
be found... they will just add more IP's from diffrent block, further
'wasting' IP space.
-jim
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Martin Hannigan
<martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote:
> >From a strictly operational perspective:
>
> The only concern that I had with that request was with the v4 address
> blocking. That ought to be rethought in the grand scheme of things i.e. v=
4
> exhaustion. =A0There's a reasonable case to make regarding not tainting h=
osts
> or specific blocks in this manner. Creating "less usable" v4 resources as=
we
> approach exhaustion is not helpful, IMHO.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>> 2009/5/4 John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>:
>>>
>>>> Not withstanding the legality of such an order, how would one
>>>>> operationally enforce that order?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The order has a list of IP addresses, so I expect the ISPs will just
>>>> block those IPs in routers somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Since offshore online gambling is equally illegal everywhere in the
>>>> U.S., the ISPs have little reason to limit the block to Minnesota
>>>> customers, giving them a lot of latitude in where they implement the
>>>> block.
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Martin Hannigan =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 martin@theicelandguy.com
> p: +16178216079
> Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupant=
s
>
