Re: Welcome to the new(ish) ASRG list

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]>wrote:


> What needs to happen (would solve multiple problems) is that ISPs need to
> announce the "customer allocation size" in something that is scalable, and
> then tools need to adapt to this and not treat IPv6 space as 2^128
> addresses but instead treat it as "customer blocks" of different sizes, and
> do anti-spam handling on these customer block boundaries instead of per-IP.


Agreed in so far as a scalably published allocation size makes IP-based
reputation management easier. I would not fall back to /128 addresses by
default, but possibly to some reasonable allocation, eg /64?

I played around with some local experiments of such a scheme. While the
technical results are not worth sharing (just a bunch of ugly Perl
scripts), it became obvious that this will not match the simplicity/low
complexity of IPv4 DNSxLs defaulting to /32. The application logic will
become more complex, while the DNS logic[*] does not need to change.

-- Matthias

[*] Assuming DNS as a transport protocol; there may be better alternatives
if we need to touch "everything", but I'm not aware of any.