Meant to send this to the list. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:52 PM, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: >>They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as >>that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my >>concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the >>same reason and I don't really *think* it's a legitimate reason. > > No legitimate mailer needs more than one /64 per physical network. > Same reason. > > R's, > John >
This is my feeling exactly. The unfortunate part is, they seem to be close with another customer of ours with whom we've had a very good professional and non-shady working relationship for a number of years. My feeling is that they simply do not fully know what they are doing. I believe that they think they are doing things in a technically clever way, but in reality, it just makes them look incredibly shady. As I said, they've been a customer for about 7 years now and for the amount of email that they send, the complaints are at a bare minimum. I've seen much worse much quicker when a customer's box becomes an open spam relay. That said, the decision has been made to not provide them the addresses. In addition, we are going to force them to renumber into a much smaller block of contiguous IPs. I am of the firm belief of many others on here that for customers whose business deals primarily in email, there is no legitimate reason to have multiple discontiguous blocks. We've dished out assignments like this before, but I've only seen it requested by companies that do *legal* security vulnerability scans. Thanks, steve
