RE: [anti-spam-wg] Non-cooperation of RIPE ISP in investigating report of email abuse (spam)
To: "peter h" peter@localhost, anti-spam-wg@localhost
From: "brett" brett@localhost
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:46:21 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-spam-wg-admin@localhost [
> Behalf Of peter h
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [anti-spam-wg] Non-cooperation of RIPE ISP in
> report of email abuse (spam)
> On Sunday 13 January 2008 22.49, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 03:59:46PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> > > One thing that might help would be for a RIR to themselves emit a
> > > for any space assigned to them but currently not sub-assigned, a
> > > which would blackhole the traffic.
> > Given that any more specific route out of that space announced by a
> > "black hat" would just overrule that blackhole route, the RIRs would
> > have to announce all the remaining address space as /24s (because
> > mostly agree to not accept anything more specific than a /24).
> > Some few 100.000s of them.
> > Good plan.
> > Gert Doering
> > -- NetMaster
> Exactly what i feared.
> Is there any works-in-progress for authenticated enforcable BGP-(5?)
Certification of ip resources is currently work in progress when these
certificates are available and widely used there is no reason why this
could not be made part of BGP (or whatever we use then)