PlayStationNetwork blocking of CGNAT public addresses

Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.lists at
Thu Sep 22 14:26:18 UTC 2016

Well yes – if you have the automation, that is great.


Of course the format of whatever log they send you matters too.


I’ve had abuse complaints in a past life where the abuse report was a screenshot from a checkpoint firewall with “Dear team, for your attention” in bright red in a large font.


Personally I don’t trash abuse reports that are valid.




From: Tom Beecher <beecher at>
Date: Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 7:35 PM
To: Brian Rak <brak at>
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at>, "nanog at" <nanog at>
Subject: Re: PlayStationNetwork blocking of CGNAT public addresses


The format of the abuse complaint doesn't mean anything if it still doesn't contain any relevant data to say what the abuse IS. (Or, even if it IS abuse at all.)





On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Brian Rak <brak at> wrote:

Single IP per email: automated, zero time at all.

Multiple IPs per email: manual process, minutes per IP.

On 9/22/2016 9:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

Considering that there are likely to be many such emails - just how much time is it going to take your abuse desk staffer to just parse out those IPs from whatever log that they send you?

And how much time would processing say 50 individual emails take compared to 50 IPs in a single email?


On 22-Sep-2016, at 6:58 PM, Brian Rak <brak at <mailto:brak at>> wrote:

We've also started ignoring their abuse emails, for the same reason.  Their abuse emails at one point contained the line:

> P.S. If you would prefer an individual email for each IP address on this list, please let us know.

But, they didn't respond after we contacted them requesting it (and that line has since been removed).



More information about the NANOG mailing list