On 2010/12/30 7:49 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Actually... is anyone on the list aware of an IPv6 provider that assigns
less than a /64 to end-users? My tunnel broker gives us a /64 for our tunnel
and a routed /48 for our network. Our hosting provider gives us a /64
for each host. Anyone on the
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:15:42 +0100
Matthias Leisi wrote:
> Can you be really, absolutely sure that there will never, ever be a
> need to report reputation on anything else than /64?
I think it's a safe bet, especially for whitelists. If you're
whitelisting someone, chances are that person knows
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:42:58 -0800
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> What this really calls for is a reworking of the SpamAssassin code.
> SA is going to have to start caching the results of any IPv6 DNS
> BL queries for a set period of time, probably 2 days.
Why? Isn't caching the results of queries t
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:05:16 +0100
Matthias Leisi wrote:
> Today, querying IPv4 DNSxLs is more or less limited to individual IPs.
> Making a new protocol that has more flexibility is very much needed -
> one size will not fit all, especially not in the protocol design.
OK. But I think the draft
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:52 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
>> and shared hosting providers may
>> allocate smaller ranges to their customers (why not an individual IP
>> to each customer?).
>
> Because then your routing table gets insane.
They may allocate the IPs in a virtualisation layer.
> If dn
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:34:47 +0100
Matthias Leisi wrote:
> It's not certain that ISPs will always allocate /64. Some may allocate
> /56 or something entirely different,
Bigger than /64 is no problem.
> and shared hosting providers may
> allocate smaller ranges to their customers (why not an ind
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:26 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with that. The smallest unit of IPv6 address
> space allocated by a provider (even to an end-user) is likely to be a
> /64, so I don't see why whitelists can't list /64's too. Essentially,
> I disagree with the phrase
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:26:07 -0500, "David F. Skoll"
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:09:42 +0100
>Matthias Leisi wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure whether that would be more appropriate for the dev list,
>> but I guess this is relevant/of interest to the SpamAssassin project,
>> and I don't know whether t
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:09:42 +0100
Matthias Leisi wrote:
> I'm not sure whether that would be more appropriate for the dev list,
> but I guess this is relevant/of interest to the SpamAssassin project,
> and I don't know whether this has caught attention here yet.
In the draft, John asserts:
