[168890] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jamie rishaw)
Thu Feb 6 08:04:05 2014
In-Reply-To: <52EFDE87.2050307@mykolab.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 06:58:28 -0600
From: jamie rishaw <j@arpa.com>
To: fergdawgster@mykolab.com
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Don't fight it.
It's clear that implementation on a per-packet basis of RFC4824 (datagrams
over Semaphore Flag Signaling System) would have prevented this entire
situation.
Refer to sections 3.3 and 3.4.
-j
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@mykolab.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 2/2/2014 2:17 PM, Cb B wrote:
>
> > And, i agree bcp38 would help but that was published 14 years ago.
>
> But what? Are you somehow implying that because BCP38 was
> "...published 14 years ago" (RFC2267 was initially published in 1998,
> and it was subsequently replaced by RFC2827)?
