Re: anti spam with DUL

>> > Some ISPs have done that. To me, that's THEIR problem. They shouldn't
>> > be
>> > allocating static addresses from their dynamic pool. The two are
>> > supposed
>> > to
>> > be mutually exclusive sets.
>>
>> Who says these should be mutually exclusive sets?? Some ISP's actually
>> try
>> to conserve IP space and DO INFACT issue a mixture of IP's to both
>> dynamic
>> and static customers out of the same /24.
>
> That's because they don't know what they're doing. Poor management is
> also
> their problem - and nowhere will [some of us] allow that to become our
> problem.
>
> What they should be doing is taking their static assignments from ONE END
> of
> the range, thus decreasing the dynamic assignment pool. If they're in
> fact
> taking from the middle anywhere they please, they deserve the consequences
> of
> their action.

They DO know what they are doing. And are doing EXACTLY what you are
suggesting anyway, the issue is that they may only need 50 dynamic IP's for
a particular pop, and need a handful of statics as well. ALL of those
assignments can come from the same /24. The problem lies in the fact that a
lot of the DUL's want to attribute an ENTIRE /24 just because there may be a
small handful of dynamics out of the range.

I have at least two pops that I only have a /24 range of IP's for, and in
both cases there are only either 24, 48, 72, or 96 phone lines. Each of
these pops also has a mail servers, dns servers, and one or two other
servers. Guess what, they all fall in the same /24. I pull a small set for
my equipment, reserve the next several /29's for static assignments and the
remaining for dialup. For me to get multiple /24's is just a waste of IP
space. People who assign entire /24's do DUL's, trying to force ISP's to
separate their networks are causing the headaches, not the small ISP's who
try to conserve address space.

I am strongly opposed to DUL's for spam control, not because blocking
dialups doesn't control spam (I think it might to a point), but because most
DUL lists are very poorly managed and generate TOO MANY false positives.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading