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