[194202] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP 38 coverage if top x providers ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Fri Mar 24 15:30:57 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Laurent Dumont <admin@coldnorthadmin.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:30:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: <f5624a15-3611-0dd8-b8c2-3b3a34040e62@coldnorthadmin.com>
(Laurent Dumont's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:04:43 -0400")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* Laurent Dumont:
> Wouldn't you want BCP38 policies to be as close as possible to the
> traffic sources? Instead of creating more "fake" traffic?
Maybe as close as possible, but still without sacrificing source
network attribution is sufficient.
> And at the same time, partial filtering doesn't seem as a very
> effective way to fight spoofed traffic on a large scale.
That depends on the problems caused by spoofed traffic. My hunch is
that non-policing networks emit a constant trickle of spoofed traffic
which does not cause any problems, and that traffic can be used to
detect lack of policing even without actual abuse of the spoofing
capability.
