[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 ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Wed Mar 9 15:14:41 CET 2011
On 03/09/11 14:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Marco Hogewoning<marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote: >> To partially solve these issues there is now a attribute in de RIPE Database called assignment size, indicating the size of assignment to a single end site. If you are working on black- or grey listings you might want to have a look at RIPE-513 which describes the use of this new attribute. > Standardizing this across RIRs would be an idea. > While the attribute may be good for informational and RIPE NCC policy-wise use, it is however unusable for any system that partition end-users/sites into particular ranges of ip-space such as blacklists and other types of restriction sysems. If I write assignment-size 112 on my /48-block in the ripe db I can pretend to come from a billion companies. A system that believed that the assignment-size was indeed 112 could be subject to abuse. Therefore the problem remains and we still have to treat a /48 as equal to /128. This might force anyone to use /48 instead of /64, /96, /112 or whatever prefixlength that works for you. Perhaps that is good. (Please don't reply with "there is enough ipv6-space anyway" :) The argument is void.)
- 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 ]