[117470] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation, replaced by registered use
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Mon Sep 14 14:25:09 2009
From: "Lee Howard" <lee@asgard.org>
To: "'Douglas Otis'" <dotis@mail-abuse.org>,
"'joel jaeggli'" <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AAE8011.1040207@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:24:10 -0400
Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Otis [mailto:dotis@mail-abuse.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:41 PM
> To: joel jaeggli
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation, replaced by =
registered use
>=20
> On 9/13/09 12:49 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> > Frank Bulk wrote:
> []
> >> If anything, there's more of a disincentive than ever before for
> >> ARIN to spend time on netblock sanitization.
> >
> > This whole thread seems to be about shifting (I.E. by externalizing)
> > the costs of remediation. presumably the entities responsible for =
the
> > poor reputation aren't likely to pay... So heck, why not ARIN?
> > perhaps because it's absurd on the face of it? how much do my fees =
go
> > up in order to indemnify ARIN against the cost of a possible future
> > cleanup? how many more staff do they need? Do I have to buy prefix
> > reputation insurance as contingent requirement for a new direct
> > assignm
>=20
> Perhaps ICANN could require registries establish a clearing-house, =
where
> at no cost, those assigned a network would register their intent to
> initiate bulk traffic, such as email, from specific addresses. Such a
> use registry would make dealing with compromised systems more =
tractable.
If they would just comply with RFC 3514, such a registry would be
unnecessary.
>=20
> This registry would also supplant the guesswork involved with divining
> meaning of reverse DNS labels.
We could standardize a string to be used in rDNS of dynamic pools, if =
you
want.
Lee
