SORBS on autopilot?

Jed Smith jed at jedsmith.org
Tue Jan 12 10:51:47 CST 2010


On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt

At the risk of hijacking the thread, is this draft considered to be of
importance outside of SORBS' domain at all?  When handling a /24 that ended up
on the DUL -- I feel this thread's pain -- I made the case that this draft
expired years ago by the book and never got any further. The DUL companies like
SORBS, Trend Micro, et. al. all point to this document as justification for
their practices, however; wouldn't that be considered violating it, given the
preamble on page 1?

The vibe I got from a number of administrators I talked to about it was "why
would a standards document assume an IPv4/IPv6 unicast address is a residential
customer with a modem, forcing those with allocations to prove that they are
not residentially allocated rather than the other way around?"

If it remains the magic document to get SORBS to pay attention to you, and
nothing more, that would be ideal.

JS





More information about the NANOG mailing list