[ppml] /48 vs /32 micro allocations

Jimmy Kyriannis jimmy.kyriannis at nyu.edu
Wed Mar 16 02:01:38 EST 2005

At 05:35 PM 3/15/2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>Thus spake "Jimmy Kyriannis" <jimmy.kyriannis at nyu.edu>
> > Yes.  One might also view that the sparsity of routing entries would
> > constitute an environment in which would be "harder to get away with"
> > hijacking, since filtering longer length prefixes creates a population of
> > much more visible/impactful prefix targets to hijack.  In that vein, if a
> > longer prefix were to "sneak into" the routing tables, it would also be
> > rather visible.
>If hijacking a /48 turns out to make folks more visible or easier to track,
>why wouldn't they just hijack /32s instead?  There's lots and lots of unused
>IPv6 space to pick from.

My point there was that a /32 represents a sizable address block, which if 
hijacked would presumably get a large number of folks' (and possibly 
service providers') attention, and might be a bit harder to get away with 
than ripping off something substantially smaller, like a /48.  This is all 
in the context of the discussion thread on SPAM activity: a scam which 
benefits more from hijacking active blocks for sourcing forged mail, rather 
than unused ones.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list