Minnesota to block online gambling sites?

jim deleskie deleskie at gmail.com
Tue May 5 18:24:25 CDT 2009


Not only do we create  "less usable" v4 address space, if these guys
had a clue, and what ever you think of them with $$ envolved clue will
be found... they will just add more IP's from diffrent block, further
'wasting' IP space.

-jim

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Martin Hannigan
<martin at theicelandguy.com> wrote:
> >From a strictly operational perspective:
>
> The only concern that I had with that request was with the v4 address
> blocking. That ought to be rethought in the grand scheme of things i.e. v4
> exhaustion.  There's a reasonable case to make regarding not tainting hosts
> or specific blocks in this manner. Creating "less usable" v4 resources as we
> approach exhaustion is not helpful, IMHO.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>> 2009/5/4 John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>:
>>>
>>>> Not withstanding the legality of such an order, how would one
>>>>> operationally enforce that order?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The order has a list of IP addresses, so I expect the ISPs will just
>>>> block those IPs in routers somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Since offshore online gambling is equally illegal everywhere in the
>>>> U.S., the ISPs have little reason to limit the block to Minnesota
>>>> customers, giving them a lot of latitude in where they implement the
>>>> block.
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Martin Hannigan                               martin at theicelandguy.com
> p: +16178216079
> Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list