[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Alessandro Vesely vesely at tana.it
Wed Mar 9 11:14:14 CET 2011
On 09/Mar/11 03:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:29 PM, peter h <peter at hk.ipsec.se> wrote: >> 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. > > At least some blocklists have moved to support v6 listings .. Yes, it is obviously possible. But discovering the right granularity and transmitting it to clients is problematic. For a possible solution see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-iprangepub . OTOH, IPv4 extensively uses NAT, so that blocking the wrong IP may affect an entire network behind it. Traditional DNSBLs would be safer without such widespread use of NAT, which can be taken down using IPv6. However we distaste spammers, we are better off if they stick to IPv4 while the rest of the traffic moves to IPv6. I note that a working definition for such address classes already exists. It may be enough to discourage public IPv6 MXes in order to promote this sort of compartmentalization.