BCP38 tester?

Tue Apr 2 14:37:22 UTC 2013

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com>

> On 4/1/13, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> >> It would just be way too much luck and convenience for that to
> >> happen
> >> by coincidence.
> >
> > Once in a while, you win.
> 
> The trouble with winning by coincidence or winning as a side-effect...
> Do you keep winning?

Depends on how you won.

> What happens with IPv6 CPE devices, when there is no NAT?

Well, that's going to be an interesting question in general: 
will v6 edge routers a) exist, b) handle the addressing, c) handle
DHCP, d) actually not do NAT, or e) NAT a v4 home network to a v6
address/network?

> No translation occurs, so possibly rogue source IP packets get
> through, unless the device specifically applies uRPF or clamping
> source addresses to the LAN interface subnet.
> 
> It would be nice if the RFCs specified Ingress filtering by default in
> router requirements for IPv4 and IPv6, as a MUST requirement; instead
> of some 2nd class citizen, optional best practices document.

Nah.  That's *not* ingress filtering, for all practical purposes; it's 
*egress* filtering -- filtering that's under control of the network 
operating entity, and thus semi-useless for the purposes at hand.

(On re-reading that, I see I'm not entirely clear: any filtering has to
be done on the upsptream end of the link, so that it is *not* in control
of the entity which might be originating the bad packets; John Carmack
illustrated why in his piece about Quake cheating.  What; you haven't 
read that piece?  And you run networks?  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647 1274