Pete Templin wrote:
John R Levine wrote:
I don't have PI space, but I do have a competent ISP so I've never
had any
mail problems due to adjacent addresses.
Having a competent ISP isn't a guarantee of exemption...only a
contributor. As evidenced by the discussion, some people choose the
I don't have PI space, but I do have a competent ISP so I've never had any
mail problems due to adjacent addresses.
Having a competent ISP isn't a guarantee of exemption...only a contributor.
As evidenced by the discussion, some people choose the scope of their wrath
arbitrarily.
Nothing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 9, 2007, at 1:49 PM, John L wrote:
I don't have PI space, but I do have a competent ISP so I've
never had any
mail problems due to adjacent addresses.
Having a competent ISP isn't a guarantee of exemption...only a
contributor. As
I would have to respectfully disagree with you. When network
operators do due diligence and SWIP their sub-allocations, they
(the sub-allocations) should be authoritative in regards to things
like RBLs.
How do you tell when they have actually done due diligence.
Existence of a SWIP record
The managed services they currently offer don't include egress filtering (L3
to L7) on their business customer's networks.
From the discussion here it sounds like that naked pipes, even if properly
SWIPed, ought not to be sold, but that all traffic should be checked on the
way out. It sounds
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they're properly SWIPed why punish the ISP for networks
they don't even
operate, that obviously belong to their business customers?
How can you tell that they don't operate a network from SWIP records?
Seems to me that lots of network
That's been my entire point. Network operators who properly SWIP don't get
credit for going through the legwork by other networks that apply
quasi-arbitrary bit masks to their blocks.
As I said before, if you're going to block a /24, why not do it right and
block *all* the IPs in their ASN?
I have to disagree. SWIP is not meaningless.
In my company some functions related to sending a SWIP are automated, but my
company has people on staff who know that it is happening and what it means.
And I talk with plenty of other companies that fall into the same boat.
In short I find
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:11:28 EDT, Azinger, Marla said:
In my company some functions related to sending a SWIP are automated,
but my company has people on staff who know that it is happening and
what it means.
Just because *your* site has enough clue to get it right doesn't mean that
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 9, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Pete Templin wrote:
Chris Owen wrote:
Well, well managed to me would mean that allocations from that /
20 were SWIPed or a rwhois server was running so that if any of
On Apr 8, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas Otis) writes:
Good advise. For various reasons, a majority of IP addresses
within a CIDR of any size being abusive is likely to cause the
CIDR to be blocked. While a majority could be considered as being
half
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
than you're describing. for example, this weekend two /24's were hijacked
and used for spam spew. as my receivebot started blackholing /32's, the
Why do you think they were hijacked ? At least for your second block:
1 71.6.213.103
I've
12 matches
Mail list logo
