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

[Mury]

I'm not sure I should comment because I did not read all of the posts
regarding this.  However, I'll take a chance at being flamed for repeating
someone else or being off-topic.

Didn't this start with someone not wanting used space, because used space
can have legacy consequences?  Those consequences being black-listed IPs,
existing servers outside the IP block still thinking they need to talk to
those IPs for a service long gone, etc.

It seems to me like it is very similiar to getting a recycled 1-800
number.  It sucks.

I really don't see how the RIRs can effectively revoke the IP space of
spammers.  That is going to take a lot of effort and probably result in a
lot of days sitting in court.  That's not to say that I wouldn't like to
see it happen, but I don't think that is a viable answer.

Why can't the RIR maintain a list of returned IP space?  Blacklisting
services that are worth using could easily cross check their blacklisted
IPs against that list.

The RIRs should also recycle the IPs on a first in first out basis to
minimize any legacy traffic going to those IPs.  It's not perfect, but
statistically it makes sense.  Of course they could also advertise all
unallocated IPs to themselves or an outside service to check for abnormal
amounts of legacy traffic and not assign blocks that are being hit hard.

It's hard for me to imagine that if IP space is returned and it is not
recycled for a year or two that a blacklisting service couldn't find the
resources to remove that IP space from their lists and for a very high
percentage of the legacy traffic to have vanished.

Anyone using a blacklisting service that can't keep something like that up
to date can't possibly trust their accuracy anyway.  And in my experience
most blacklisters are savvy enough to appreciate and utilize a list that
the RIR's could easily maintain.

Mury




On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:28:53 -0800, Jill Kulpinski wrote:
> >This whole issue regarding blacklists seems to be growing each day and more
> >rapidly in the past few months.  I would love to know what to tell Customers who
> >are assigned space that was once used by some other Customer who got it
> >blacklisted on one of the thousands of lists out there.  I can not control who
> >creates a blacklist, nor who uses it to set up filters, so is there really any
> >means of providing a Customer address space that will never be blacklisted?  No.
> >But they want temporary fixes in the meantime which is an impractical solution.
> >I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this but I realize I may be
> >getting off of the topic a bit.
>
>
> It is completely on topic for the reasons you state.
>
> In general,  announcement on Spam-L and NANAE that the ownership of IP address
> space has been taken over by new non-spammer user will cause many or most of
> the blocklists to remove the previously offending addresses.   However some
> blocklist managers don't follow these groups assiduously, some blocklist
> managers have a several-month waiting period, and some blocklist managers have
> a policy NEVER to admit traffic from any once-polluted address space, possibly
> because they have been lied to so many times.
>
> So there is NO universal retrospective solution.
>
> Therefore, and this is the simple point I have been trying to make here,
> there remains only a prospective solution.    That is what you have to face,
> and face now, because the use of blocklists is growing rapidly and possibly
> exponentially.  It is the only defense we victims have against the present
> irresponsible management of IP address space and domain names.
>
> The RIRs are responsible for the proper management, express and
> implied, of the IP address space allocated to them.  Since recycling of
> IP address space obviously will occur over the years, decades and
> centuries, the RIRs have a duty to prevent pollution of the resources
> they manage.  The pollution comes from spamming.   This means the RIRs
> have to have a clear policy that IP address users must not spam, must
> not allow spammers on their networks, and must have hair-trigger management
> systems in place to identify incipient spammers and penalize them (because
> blocklist additions can occur in days).  (All this is eminently doable now
> by presently existing technical measures, and many ISPs do indeed use such
> measures.)  Any user who violates this rule must have his IP address space
> withdrawn. That is the only sanction that anyone will pay attention to.
>
> In short, the RIRs have to take on a role to act, probably agggressively
> and violently, against abuse of the resources they manage, by the people
> to whom they entrust these resources.   If you list members are not willing
> to rise up and force them to prevent spammers from pissing in the pool,
> then don't complain about how the water tastes when you swim in it.  It
> is the result of your own (in)action.
>
> Jeffrey Race
>