[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Costs of Portable IP Space [was: New Node]
Looking at the various requirements, it looks like RIPE would be a tad bit more relaxed, as they allow /24 for end user assignments and the entry requirements aren't quite as high. The problem would be that the ISP(Softlayer) would still have to use it's AS to announce the tor range. Possible causing abuse to be forwarded to them still, unless we setup our own infustructure completely. Also ch3rob mentioned that they could route IP space anywhere given a Debian server. Any idea on how that works and if we could roll our own?
Anybody interested in talking to Softlayer about BGP announcement and to RIPE or ARIN about IP space?
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Moritz Bartl <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I agree. The major point for me to look into PI address space was to
On 31.08.2010 02:18, Mike Perry wrote:
> After thinking about this and other ways of enabling the default exit
> policy in the US, I am beginning to wonder if the default exit policy
> is a really good idea here.
handle the rest of the abuse without making the ISP unhappy (and get
their IPs blacklisted).
I don't believe sending any complaint to /dev/null is a wise path to
take anyway. What I do is always answer them with a proper, friendly
response inviting further communication on the issue - if only for legal
reasons. That could be easily automated for DMCA spam of course.
I am worried that some day, a more serious abuse case will hit us.
Neither Softlayer nor FDC (or any other ISP?) will hesitate to get rid
The second reason for a large set of IPs I see is bridges. The impact
would probably be limited, as entities will at some point start to block
the whole range instead of going after individual IPs, but it helps the
current situation and could be useful for research in bridge address
distribution/blocking etc. (and might be a good argument for the
required IP usage justification)
BTW, I was told that RIPE space could be announced outside of Europe,
too. The question remains if the ISP would be willing to announce it, or
if one could announce it on his own with OpenBGP.
Did you ask FDC about this yet?
The range could be divided into multiple /23's to use with different
providers, each offering a first line of defense against most abuse
complaints (because we could properly handle them), and maybe some
protection against unwarranted inquiries. Who knows how fast your ISP is
willing to give out more data than you like to an interested party.
BTW, Softlayer finally agreed to SWIP our IP range (and the record
contains our contact address as comment), but refuses to attach our own
abuse handle, so this doesn't help too much. Lesson learned: First ask
if the ISP is willing to SWIP your IPs, *including* adding your own
handles. 2host.com for example told me they can do that. This might be a
good addition for your guide.
Also, all this screams for an overhaul of the GoodBadISPs page, with a
template for asking about Tor hosting, a second template for asking then
for proper (!) SWIP, and a more systematic way of listing ISPs and
historical experience. It's a Wiki: Anyone, feel free to do it :-)