chris tknchris at
Fri Apr 6 20:55:17 CDT 2012

i dont think anyone would miss sorbs if it was gone, dare i say it not even
a single person

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen at> wrote:
> > Brielle Bruns wrote:
> > to come from such a block is more often than not a necessity. It's very
> > unlikely to see 1 abuser in between an otherwise perfectly behaving
> network
> > neighbourhood.
> That's kind of vague to say it's "unlikely to see 1 abuser".   What is
> the probability that
> more IPs in the same /24  are likely to harbor abusers,  given that you
> have
> received abuse from one IP?
> And how have you discovered this?
> ( What is the criteria used to determine that it is unlikely, and what
> is your source of the information?)
> Are you assuming that if you've seen the abuse,  that you probably
> weren't the first victim,
> that the ISP has probably already been notified by someone else,
> that they have likely had a
> reasonable amount of time to put a stop to the abuse,  and that they
> failed to do so?
> There is the one good case where a single abuser has a dynamic IP address;
> but it's not a safe assumption that they will live in the same /24
> next time the abuser dials in.
> So not only does listing an entire /24    list innocent users'  IP
> addresses,
> it also does not necessarily effectively list the one abuser.
> --
> -JH

More information about the NANOG mailing list