On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote:
This approach works fine if one presumes that the problem is always just
the customer (i.e. their ISP is actively interested in helping solve the
problem.) For ISPs who are not as interested (or may have an actual
motivation to hinder resolution of the problem), this will not work.
Well, I would also like to see reputation done on per-ISP level. If an ISP
doesn't care, then the reputation of all the customers behind that ISP is
lower.
While the above situation has also been somewhat true with IPv4, it is
definitely the case with IPv6, since the typical address space
allocation sizes provide ample space for whitewashing customers into new
prefixes. As a result, it is questionable whether any IPv6 address-based
reputation system can be successful (at least those based on voluntary
principles.)
This is absolutely a problem. I encourage all ISPs to give customers the
same addresses all the time, and publish if they provide dynamic. This is
one more factor which should be included in the publication
(static/dynamic allocation of addresses). So basically dynamic ones should
be treated like "dialup space" today, static ones can actually be trusted
if the ISP is reliable. If static and reliable ISP = reputation of one
customer of allocation size can be blacklisted without affecting other
customers.
ISPs that do this reliably should have high reputation, and the ones who
don't, should get low reputation. Low reputation ISPs I guess none of
this data should be trusted.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(_at_)swm(_dot_)pp(_dot_)se