[168813] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Tue Feb 4 23:06:06 2014
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Livingood, Jason'" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF16F4C6.C1C55%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 22:03:04 -0600
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Here's such a report:
http://spoofer.cmand.org/summary.php
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:53 PM
To: Octavio Alvarez; North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]
On 2/4/14, 7:48 PM, "Octavio Alvarez" <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> wrote:
>What I'm failing to understand, and again, please excuse me if I'm
>oversimplifying, is what data do you need from researchers,
>specifically. What specific actionable data would be helpful? Why does
>the lack of the data prevent you from applying an ACL.
What I am suggesting is that the community at large needs measurement
data, rather than individual network operators (which already know if they
do or do not implement BCP38). Only with a long list of operators that DO
prevent spoofing and a list of those that DO NOT, backed up with a decent
data set (enough measurement points, enough measurement tests, across
enough time, with an openly shared methodology), can the community start
to encourage non-adopters to change their position. Just my two cents
though...
Jason
