[168832] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Livingood, Jason)
Wed Feb 5 13:08:15 2014
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
To: Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:06:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <005001cf2227$2b9c3480$82d49d80$@iname.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Cool, thanks for the pointed. Now if we could get the data by ASN and
publish it on a site like bcp38.info, that would be awesome.
On 2/4/14, 11:03 PM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
