[121167] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBS on autopilot?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jed Smith)
Tue Jan 12 11:52:37 2010
From: Jed Smith <jed@jedsmith.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1001111103350.22812@soloth.lewis.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:47 -0500
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> =
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.t=
xt
At the risk of hijacking the thread, is this draft considered to be of
importance outside of SORBS' domain at all? When handling a /24 that =
ended up
on the DUL -- I feel this thread's pain -- I made the case that this =
draft
expired years ago by the book and never got any further. The DUL =
companies like
SORBS, Trend Micro, et. al. all point to this document as justification =
for
their practices, however; wouldn't that be considered violating it, =
given the
preamble on page 1?
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?"
If it remains the magic document to get SORBS to pay attention to you, =
and
nothing more, that would be ideal.
JS
