[107493] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 dismissal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jo Rhett)
Thu Sep 4 12:54:46 2008
From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
To: "John C. A. Bambenek" <bambenek@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d800cd540809040950w28db76afle6762f19de2c1331@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:52:22 -0700
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Count you which way? You seem to agree with me. Everyone should be
doing both, not discounting BCP38 because they aren't seeing an attack
right now.
On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:50 AM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
> Count me in.
>
> There is no reason to limit our defenses to the one thing that we
> think is important at one instance in time... attackers change and
> adapt and multimodal defense is simply good policy.
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box (cp-policer/
>>> control
>>> plane filtering) is far more important IMO than implementing BCP38
>>> when
>>> much
>>> of attack traffic comes from legitimate IP sources anyway (see
>>> botnets).
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood.
>> Sure, yes,
>> protecting yourself is so much more important than protecting
>> anyone else.
>>
>> Anyone else want to stand up and join the "I am an asshole" club?
>>
>> --
>> Jo Rhett
>> Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
>> and
>> other randomness
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
