[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6

[Sweeting, John]

Wouldn't this apply to all returned IP blocks? and not just to ones returned
under this policy? Should this be a reason not to move forward with Policy
2002-6?

-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Stacy [mailto:Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 7:27 PM
To: 'Joe Baptista'; McBurnett, Jim
Cc: David Conrad; Einar Bohlin; ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6


This issue also affects the larger CIDR on occasion.  If an abuser was on
one /24, some ISPs will block the CIDR to which it belongs, even if the ISP
has taken care of the spam.  Geoff of Exodus and I spoke of this at length
at the conference.

Presumably, if the block has been returned, the former user is out of
business or on another block and cannot be contacted.  How does it help us
to know who that was?  
Are we forced to use this space in tiny blocks to interrupt the routing?  I
think we can ill afford to blacklist blocks.

Stacy

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at dot-god.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:54 PM
To: McBurnett, Jim
Cc: David Conrad; Einar Bohlin; ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6



On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, McBurnett, Jim wrote:

> Exactly!
> I got a Class C from my provider and I get at least 500-1000 hits a day to
two of my IP's for DNS services, Which are there anymore and other less
frequent hits to web services ports.

sometimes legacy traffic is automated (no human in charge).  the equipment
or software thinks there's something there and keeps trying.

We have the same issues on some of our IP - old customers who still get
queried.

regards
joe baptista