19 Jul
2019
19 Jul
'19
5:41 p.m.
On 7/19/19 04:26, Brian wrote:
Secondly, as a software developer I have a ruleset in
my software that
allows for specific things based on the subnet of 44.0.0.0/8. Not
knowing about this ahead of time and preparing for when the event were
to take place now leaves me to scramble to get a security release out
that engages more filters for 44-net as a whole when I could have had a
release out prior to this even occurring.
I think this is a perfectly valid complaint, and it is very well taken.
Brian can probably answer more completely, but (unfortunately) the
nature of sales negotiations required this to be kept quiet until it was
done. Even now, we cannot release some of the details of this sale until
they are indirectly reported in our public IRS filings.
Secrecy puts a bad taste in my mouth too, so I strongly sympathize. This
was a first for me. But there seems to have been no alternative. I think
Brian did the very best job he could under the limitations.
Regarding to whom the block was sold, I think the problem with botnets
is much bigger than one company. Sure, Amazon has a lot of bots but
that's because they are so large and have such a huge general purpose
hosting business.
Also consider the market for a block this large. It's not a long list.
And address blocks are definitely more valuable when not broken up.
But hey, if you'd really like to go back to only one ACL entry, we could
also sell 44.128/10. Then you'd only need 44/9. :-) <-- (note smiley)
73, Phil