[142250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Address Assignment Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==)
Mon Jun 20 11:26:48 2011
In-Reply-To: <20110620150727.GA57111@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= <jerome@ceriz.fr>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:26:20 +0200
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
2011/6/20 Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>:
> In a message written on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:01:24AM -0700, JC Dill wr=
ote:
>> I would use this answer in reply to the customer, and ask them to
>> (specifically) justify their request for the discontiguous blocks.
That's like asking them to state the obvious...
> Or, just don't offer it. =C2=A0Make them fit in one block, giving them
> 3 months to renumber into a single, larger block if necessary.
Well, forcing a periodic renumbering whenever adress gets freed and
there's a potential agregation is a good thing. It should be stated in
service agreements, IMHO.
> It sends a strong message you're willing to give them all the space
> they need, but won't help them evade RBL's.
Unless many contiguous blocks are assigned as different objects : a
RBL must NOT presume of one end-user's inetnum unless it has been
cathed doing nasty things AND didn't comply to abuse@ requests.
But most RBL managers are shitheads anyway, so help them evade,
that'll be one more proof of spamhaus &co. uselessness and negative
impact on the Internet's best practices.
--=20
J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Nicolle
