[192798] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP 38 coverage if top x providers ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alain Hebert)
Tue Nov 22 10:26:46 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Alain Hebert <ahebert@pubnix.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:26:42 -0500
In-Reply-To: <002e01d242d3$a5a348c0$f0e9da40$@iname.com>
Reply-To: ahebert@pubnix.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi Frank,
Applying BCP38 at those level is more risky because of the sheer
volume of transit & prefixes.
For years, people have been working hard pushing the responsibility
of BCP38 to outside their sandbox.
You may remember one of those instance.
-----
Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
On 11/19/16 21:13, Frank Bulk wrote:
> My google fu is failing me, but I believe there was a NANOG posting a year
> or two ago that mentioned that if the top x providers would implement BCP 38
> then y% of the traffic (or Internet) would be de-spoofed. The point was
> that we don't even need everyone to implement BCP 38, but if the largest
> (transit?) providers did it, then UDP reflection attacks could be minimized.
>
> If someone can recall the key words in that posting and dig it up, that
> would be much appreciated.
>
> Frank
>
>
