IPv6 black lists?

[John Payne]

On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> But is dnsbl a technique that should be encouraged for IPv6?
> 
> It's already a blunt weapon for IPv4. As the virbl site notes,
> for IPv6 the only practical atom is a /64 and that is a *very*
> blunt weapon indeed. Its potential for false positives is
> extremely high.

I think that depends on the policies of the dnsbl maintainer and the dnsbl consumer.

I personally wouldn't want to trust anything that shared a layer2 network with a virus laden machine even if it wasn't the same machine... so blocking at /64 is fine by me.  Others may disagree.

In the specific case of dnsbl's I do see /64 as an advantage - the false positives will be much lower than trying to block "same subnet" in IPv4.




> 
>    Brian
> 
> 
> On 2010-03-10 02:46, Emanuele Balla wrote:
>> On 3/9/10 2:41 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> Does anybody know if there are IPv6 DNSBL available?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>> 
>> http://virbl.bit.nl/index.php#ipv6
>> 
>> Mainly proofs of concept, since rbldnsd does not support ipv6 datasets yet.
>> 
>