[121170] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBS on autopilot?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Jan 12 12:38:26 2010
To: Jed Smith <jed@jedsmith.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:47 EST."
<9E57EFB7-12FB-4A5F-A82E-B67DBEC52C57@jedsmith.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:37:12 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1263317832_4706P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:51:47 EST, Jed Smith said:
> 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?"
What percent of allocated globally routed IP addresses are residential endpoints,
and what percent are in data centers? What's the better base assumption if
your goal is "I don't want to talk to address ranges that are full of botted
boxes"? There's a *reason* why "default deny" is a well-known security policy.
--==_Exmh_1263317832_4706P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFLTLNIcC3lWbTT17ARAmoqAKDXMwrb9ki8008uYiIRs7WM6hNSzQCdEBeL
XCWP9/d1kqU+JeCkWCTL4/g=
=Ao/b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1263317832_4706P--
