News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Reclaiming IPv4 Class E's 240.0.0.0/4 by redox99 on Monday May 27, 2024 @08:59PM (#40496345)
Yes, I meant IPv4.

And rate limiting is very uncertain. If I limit per /56, users that have an entire /48 can outright bypass the rate limit. If I limit per /48, maybe I'll erroneously limit thousands of users whose ISP has all of them on the same /48.

Re:Reclaiming IPv4 Class E's 240.0.0.0/4 by pests on Monday May 27, 2024 @10:03PM (#40496679)
Don't you have those same issues with banning/rate limiting IV46 though?
Re:Reclaiming IPv4 Class E's 240.0.0.0/4 by ta1243 on Tuesday May 28, 2024 @02:01AM (#40497773)
The difference between a /48 (like my residential handoff) and a /64 (like some people get) is the same as a difference between blocking a single /32 ipv4 address and blocking an entire /16 - which is a very large allocation

If you wanted to block me, you'd have to block the whole /48. If you blocked a /48, you could be blocking 64,000 people.

Re:Reclaiming IPv4 Class E's 240.0.0.0/4 by pests on Tuesday May 28, 2024 @10:40AM (#40501176)
I meant IPv4 - one IP might represent thousands of users.

Looks like crote brought the issue up in a sibling thread.

Re:Reclaiming IPv4 Class E's 240.0.0.0/4 by redox99 on Wednesday May 29, 2024 @07:17AM (#40510679)
I haven't experienced such congested CGNATs. And assuming there are people who are under such CGNATs, they are probably used to being rate limited all the time.
Re:Reclaiming IPv4 Class E's 240.0.0.0/4 by crote on Tuesday May 28, 2024 @02:41AM (#40497997)
But the exact same issue exists with IPv4 due to CGNAT? A single IPv4 address could be used by a single user, or their ISP could be sharing that same single IP with many thousands of users.