Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation

Martin Hannigan martin at
Fri Sep 11 22:52:38 UTC 2009

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:23 PM, David Conrad <drc at> wrote:

> Marty,

> It's possible that not everything is above the table as well.
> Actually, no.  The whole point in publishing the algorithm IANA is using in
> allocating /8s is to allow anyone to verify for themselves we are following
> that algorithm.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. See below.

>  I think that the perception is reality here though. ICANN has arbitrarily
>> created process that impacts RIR's unequally. To me, that's unfair.
> As stated, we followed existing RIR practices regarding treatment of LACNIC
> and AfriNIC.  Oddly, the RIR CEOs were happy with the algorithm when we
> asked them about it.

I honestly don't think that it's up to them to create a set-aside either,
hence my comment about behind the scenes activities. I appreciate you
detailing that, but I honestly don't think it matters since as you mentioned
you get accused of this all of the time. I would expect that ICANN would not
only follow the rules, but safeguard them as well.

Numbering policy usually goes to the members of each of the RIR communities,
just as the IANA to RIR policy did. The algorithm itself is great. The
set-aside is the problem. I'd be happy with the algorithm and all of the
space. It would be more fair to us all and not appear as a cost shifting or
potential windfall.



Martin Hannigan                               martin at
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

More information about the NANOG mailing list