[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
peter h
peter at hk.ipsec.se
Tue Mar 8 18:59:52 CET 2011
On Tuesday 08 March 2011 18.54, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 08/Mar/11 17:38, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote: > >> Both [of "Broadband IP space" and "IPs used for email marketing"] > >> could be true, although that would probably be the best choice. > >> However, as we approach the point where obtaining IPv4 address > >> space becomes more difficult I think we will have to accept that > >> individual IPv4 addresses will share role much more frequently. > > > > I guess. But the allocation policies, whois requirements etc remain > > substantially the same for ipv6. > > This similarity should make less and less sense, as time goes by. > How do users choose between IPv4 and IPv6 in case they have both? In > particular, DNSBLs are more difficult with IPv6, so it could make > sense to kindly push users to sticking to IPv4 for _and only for_ > tasks that may benefit from DNSBLs, typically public MXes and email > marketing. I have no problem with blocklists ipv6. Larger chunks however :-) I do have problem with abuse, where spam is the dominant factor, often used as vehicle for other kinds of fraud. > > -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]