[195533] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent BCP-38
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Thu Aug 17 07:36:03 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:35:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708170825060.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Strict vs. loose.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "chris" <tknchris@gmail.com>
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:27:17 AM
Subject: Re: Cogent BCP-38
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, chris wrote:
> Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake ....
I am all for people deploying BCP38, but from the original email this is
definitely not a cause for celebration. BCP38 should be used against
single homed customers only if you're doing it by using uRPF. Otherwise
extreme care needs to be taken to make sure traffic isn't dropped because
uRPF does the wrong thing (like it seems in this case).
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
