* Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> [Thu, 3 Feb 2011 23:12:27 +0100]: > I'm glad this thread soon got to the point where we realise the > problem is on the application layer level. > > So what are exactly the implications for blocking and related issues > when we will start to see ISP level NATing? > Am I right to assume that we will start seeing requests from say a > global ISP NAT which may cover many clients, XFF 10.x.x.x? > > If so, do we need to be able to send both the ISP NAT IP, and the XFF > IP to the servers, and amend the software so that we are able to block > on the combination (so we can block, for example IP 9.10.11.12 XFF > 10.45.68.15?) > > Will we be needing anon user- and user talk pages for a combination of > ISP NAT IP and XFF IP? when ISP level NAT's show up? > I already do something like that with IPv4 in my poll extension. I've noticed how many people are posting from private addresses behind the proxies with internet address, so I record both IP/XFF as anonymous user name (however private IP XFF by default is not recorded, you have to enable it with $wgUsePrivateIPs = true; XFF value becomes a subpage in NS_USER user page. Dmitriy
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
