[121336] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBS on autopilot?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Fri Jan 15 11:33:25 2010
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:32:35 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4B50927A.9030500@sorbs.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 05:06:18PM +0100, Michelle Sul=
livan wrote:
> The common a reoccurring issue is the response by the robot has given=20
> the next logical step to progress any delisting request (as has been=20
> stated here recently, in another thread).. and the requester has either=
=20
> not read the response or chosen to ignore the response or <insert other=
=20
> reason which results in not responding to the ticket>... then the come=20
> here complaining about not getting a response from SORBS. The reality=20
> is they got a response from SORBS and did not act upon the response. =20
> Sorry Ken, this is not having a go at you, but it is a very common theme=
=20
> and deserves airing. Other issues are where the appropriate contact (as=
=20
> listed in the whois record at the RIR) also ignore the same two=20
> sentences, get rejected by the robot and choose to log a new ticket only=
=20
> to get the same response over and over again.
So, let me see if I got this right:
1) Network reports 1.2.3.0/24 has no dynamic IP addresses in it.
2) SORBS robot reponds with "you must change your rDNS."
3) Profit?
What your telling me is the SORBS list of "dynamic IP's" is in fact
not a list of dynamic IP's. Rather it is the "SORBS list of things
that have DNS names that look like dynamic IP's".
Rather than take on the burden of making the list reflect what you
say it does (dynamic IP's) by for instance taking the report and
putting it in some sort of exception list (possibly with some
investigation) you're putting all the burden back on the network
operator.
Given that it only operates on DNS names, one has to wonder if there
is any value to the list. I can easily put a list of prohibited
dns forms in my local blackist (e.g. dhcp-.*) and then I don't have
to query the DNSbl, reducing network traffic and latency.
It would appear to me SORBS is providing no value (in the specific cause
of the dynamic IP list) if this is the case. The entire point of
"outsourcing" the list to SORBS would be to get something better than
just a regex on DNS names, but that appears to be all that is being
provided.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD)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=gLVc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd--
