[155538] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DNS Changer items
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Wed Aug 15 11:31:02 2012
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:01:15 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120815135552.GA81910@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 8/15/12 6:55 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> While I understand that in the face of IPv4 exhaustion long quarantine
> periods are probably no longer a good idea, I think 6 weeks is
> shockingly short. I also think to blanket apply the quarantine is
> a little short sighted, there are cases that need a longer cooling
> off period, and this may be one of them.
I guess the question I'd pose is it going to get dramatically better if
it were longer? 12 weeks? 52?
Remediation of whatever wrong with a given prefix is an active activity,
it's not likely to go away unless the prefix is advertised.
In the case of dns changer, I would think that if you don't have working
DNS for long enough you're going to have your computer fixed or throw it
out. if you were an operator using that prefix to prevent customer
breakage you should be on notice that's not sustainable indefinitely or
indeed for much longer.
> I think the RIPE membership, and indeed the policy making bodies
> of all RIR's should look at their re-allocation policies with this
> case in mind and see if a corner case like this doesn't present a
> surprising result.
>
