Address Assignment Question

Steve Richardson steverich.nanog at
Tue Jun 21 11:16:41 UTC 2011

Meant to send this to the list.

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:52 PM, John Levine <johnl at> wrote:
>>They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
>>that.  I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
>>concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
>>same reason and I don't really *think* it's a legitimate reason.
> No legitimate mailer needs more than one /64 per physical network.
> Same reason.
> R's,
> John

This is my feeling exactly.  The unfortunate part is, they seem to be
close with another customer of ours with whom we've had a very good
professional and non-shady working relationship for a number of years.
 My feeling is that they simply do not fully know what they are doing.
 I believe that they think they are doing things in a technically
clever way, but in reality, it just makes them look incredibly shady.
As I said, they've been a customer for about 7 years now and for the
amount of email that they send, the complaints are at a bare minimum.
I've seen much worse much quicker when a customer's box becomes an
open spam relay.

That said, the decision has been made to not provide them the
addresses.  In addition, we are going to force them to renumber into a
much smaller block of contiguous IPs.  I am of the firm belief of many
others on here that for customers whose business deals primarily in
email, there is no legitimate reason to have multiple discontiguous
blocks.  We've dished out assignments like this before, but I've only
seen it requested by companies that do *legal* security vulnerability


More information about the NANOG mailing list