>Using the link-level address to distinguish between good and bad email
>content was always daunting at best. Thanks for pointing out that this
>flawed behaviour must cease.
I don't know anyone who does that. But I know a lot of people who use
both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to distinguish among "ha
ss that in those days, basic hygiene
demanded you know who you sent mail to, and on whose behalf. For at least
some people.
-G
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Måns Nilsson
wrote:
> Subject: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
> rapid ipv6 adoption"
Subject: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid
ipv6 adoption") Date: Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:06:34PM -0400 Quoting Rob McEwen
(r...@invaluement.com):
>
> I welcome IPv6 adoption in the near future in all but one area: the sending
> IPs of v
>From the time we began to take the idea of an address runout seriously
in the early 90s to the actual address runout which would be just
about now new priorities arose such as spam which I'll say really got
going in the late 90s.
There were others such as the potential routing table explosion wh
> On Oct 3, 2015, at 14:01 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Scott Morizot wrote:
>> One of the points in having 64 bits reserved for the host
>> portion of the address is that you never need to think or worry about
>> individual addresses
>
> Well, that turned out t
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Scott Morizot wrote:
> One of the points in having 64 bits reserved for the host
> portion of the address is that you never need to think or worry about
> individual addresses
Well, that turned out to be a farce. Instead of worrying about running
out of addresses
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 08:05 , Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Rob McEwen wrote:
>
>> it then seems like dividing lines can get really blurred here and this
>> statement might betray your premise. A site needing more than 1 address...
>> subtly implies different usage case sce
age -
From: "Owen DeLong"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "nanog group"
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 2:04:48 PM
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
rapid ipv6 adoption")
Yes… This is a problem the ARIN
>One thing that I thought was going to be a huge help with sending-IP
>blacklists in the IPv6 world... was perhaps shifting to tighter
>standards and greater reliance for Forward Confirmed rDNS (FCrDNS).
A lot of IPv6 mail systems want you to use SPF and DKIM signatures on
IPv6 mail, or they won
gt; To: "Mike Hammett"
> Cc: "nanog group"
> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 8:35:41 AM
> Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
> rapid ipv6 adoption")
>
>
> Every provider gets a /32, according to
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 06:44 , Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 10/02/2015 12:44 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:09:00 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
>>
>>> Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is
>>> delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various
.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "nanog group"
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 1:56:58 PM
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
rapid ipv6 adoption")
dwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Philip Dorr"
> To: "Rob McEwen"
> Cc: "nanog group"
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM
> Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn
Scott Morizot
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
rapid ipv6 adoption")
> Also, good luck trying to shove the IPv6 genie back into the bottle.
the problem is not getting it into the bottle
On 10/3/2015 10:35 AM, Scott Morizot wrote:
One of the points in having 64 bits reserved for the host portion of
the address is that you never need to think or worry about individual
addresses. IPv6 eliminates the address scarcity issue. There's no
reason to ever think about how many individual
> Also, good luck trying to shove the IPv6 genie back into the bottle.
the problem is not getting it into the bottle. the problem is getting
it out, at scale.
when you actually measure, cgn and other forms of nat are now massive.
it is horrifying.
randy
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 21:47 , Rob McEwen wrote:
> > Also, it seems so bizarre that in order to TRY to solve this, we have to
> make sure that MASSIVE numbers of individual IPv6 IP addresses.. that equal
> numbers that my calculate can't reach
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 21:47 , Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2015 12:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> A hoster can get /48's for each customer. Each customer is technically
>> a seperate site. It's this stupid desire to over conserve IPv6
>> addresses that causes this not IPv6.
>
> In theory, yes.
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 20:58 , Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's
>> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's
>> still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's s
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Rob McEwen wrote:
it then seems like dividing lines can get really blurred here and this
statement might betray your premise. A site needing more than 1 address...
subtly implies different usage case scenarios... for different parts or
different addresses on that block... w
On 10/01/2015 08:18 PM, corta...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be
preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and just
drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to vet anyone
creating a new email server, b
> Greetings,
>
> Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be
> preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and just
> drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to vet anyone
> creating a new email server, but would that not be easier
Greetings,
Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be
preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and just
drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to vet anyone
creating a new email server, but would that not be easier then trying
Once upon a time, Stephen Satchell said:
> THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW
>
> I can see, in shared hosting, where each customer gets one IPv6
> address to support HTTPS "properly".
All the browsers in common use (except IE on XP, which shouldn't be in
common use) handle SNI just fine, so HTTPS no lo
l Beckman"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "nanog group"
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 8:35:41 AM
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
rapid ipv6 adoption")
Every provider gets a /32, according to ARIN.
IPv6 - IN
On 10/02/2015 12:44 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:09:00 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is
delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various customers.
So they apply for a /32 and give each customer a /48.
A h
---
From: "Philip Dorr" mailto:tagn...@gmail.com>>
To: "Rob McEwen" mailto:r...@invaluement.com>>
Cc: "nanog group" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (wa
"nanog group"
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
rapid ipv6 adoption")
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> I
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is
> > delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various customers.
>
> A hoster is a LIR. It isn't the end customer.
I think you are wrong here for a lot of szenarios.
Today we have for
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:09:00 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
> Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is
> delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various customers.
So they apply for a /32 and give each customer a /48.
A hoster getting *just* a /48 is about as silly as a hoste
In message <560e1f7c.6030...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes:
> On 10/2/2015 1:10 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > or working out how many addresses a
> > site needs when handing out address blocks
>
> At first, I'm with you on this.. but then when you got to the part I
> quoted above...
>
> it
On 10/2/2015 1:10 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
or working out how many addresses a
site needs when handing out address blocks
At first, I'm with you on this.. but then when you got to the part I
quoted above...
it then seems like dividing lines can get really blurred here and this
statement migh
In message <560e0c44.5060...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes:
> On 10/2/2015 12:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > A hoster can get /48's for each customer. Each customer is technically
> > a seperate site. It's this stupid desire to over conserve IPv6
> > addresses that causes this not IPv6.
>
On 10/2/2015 12:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
A hoster can get /48's for each customer. Each customer is technically
a seperate site. It's this stupid desire to over conserve IPv6
addresses that causes this not IPv6.
In theory, yes. In practice, I'm skeptical. I think many will
sub-delegate /64
In message <560e00d4.7090...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes:
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's
> > rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's
> > still need to justify their address space allo
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's
>> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's
>> still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR'
On 10/1/2015 11:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
And blocking at the /48 level WOULD cause too much collateral damage
if don't indiscriminately.
I meant, "if done indiscriminately"
excuse my other more minor typos too. I get in a hurry and my fingers
don't always type what my brain is thinking :)
On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's
rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's
still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's so
their isn't infinite numbers of sites that a spammer can ge
In message <560df4ba.5000...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes:
> RE: How to wish you hadn't rushed ipv6 adoption
>
> Force the whole world to switch to IPv6 within the foreseeable future,
> abolish IPv4... all within several years or even within 50 years... and
> then watch spam filtering wo
On 10/1/2015 11:18 PM, corta...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be
preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and
just drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to
vet anyone creating a new email server,
RE: How to wish you hadn't rushed ipv6 adoption
Force the whole world to switch to IPv6 within the foreseeable future,
abolish IPv4... all within several years or even within 50 years... and
then watch spam filtering worldwide get knocked back to the stone ages
while spammers and blackhat and
41 matches
Mail list logo
