[191844] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Sep 28 16:40:44 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "White, Andrew" <Andrew.White2@charter.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <cb692134c0ad48a1aac490728027b4b4@SC58MEXGP032.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:40:37 -0400
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1475095236_4878P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:44:35 -0000, =22White, Andrew=22 said:
> This assumes the ISP manages the customer's CPE or home router, which i=
s
> often not the case. Adding such ACLs to the upstream device, operated b=
y the
> ISP, is not always easy or feasible.
Hopefully, if you've been burnt by this, you remembered to add it to
the requirements list for the next time you buy customer-facing gear.
--==_Exmh_1475095236_4878P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iQEVAwUBV+wqxI0DS38y7CIcAQKe4AgAmAPvP4LZSrvtUXYBriB4DdtmbNSBO5NO
SknkP78oS3gZujG4maQAx5ON/h1YEK/D4yvVR3sbhGek0LaSvqYgpWXbJWHXDfcM
hxVT5eVCEAh7A75VamunWMt3Ql9R1CcjlB+jXnyzvCSw6vefhAdAEynJRitvNkAZ
FdYEaOj9UZZdZFQBtddZGl5Mfo0Ex/S/618+C5BNx5wkNXYs4LyO9tni8rqmEYDF
JXnCia3xpMv7+mS/n9fwHmJlkf7laXNCUdlmgf2QW69g9mAUMvjcYfzUN5YXXS65
EVTSq9bloDFua6nsUqdpDspAL41RCgt+AUmfLuWg6xnnheZrdU1gJw==
=11V/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1475095236_4878P--
