BCP38 making it work, solving problems

Joe Maimon jmaimon at ttec.com
Mon Oct 11 21:57:32 UTC 2004



Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

>True, but yet another cop out.
>
>If you're not part of the solution, .....
>
>- ferg
>
>-- Dan Hollis <goemon at anime.net> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>  
>
>>I wrote it, I stand beside it. I'm sick of hearing why people
>>haven't implemented it yet -- it's almost five years later
>>and there's simply no excuse. It's sickening.
>>    
>>
>
>it's cheaper to ignore bcp38 than to implement it.
>
>  
>
Well NANOG wants to have it both ways:

-Boo the providers who bill for spoofed packets
-Wish it wasnt cheaper to do nothing to ensure packets leaving your 
network are not spoofed

I vote providers should charge triple or more for ( reaction,detection 
and supression costs caused by)  spoofed packets coming from their 
transit customers. Now we have incentive on both sides. The provider to 
identify this traffic and the customer to stop it. (Dont POTS telcos 
offer something like this?)

The same will encourage customers to start asking for QOS and rate limiting.
Now when the Provider shuts you down they have done you a nice financial 
favor.

Toss in the the option for "spoof insurance" whereby the customer pays 
extra to insure that any spoofed packets from his network are not billed 
for and it gets a little more confusing.

>operators are reactive to abuse, not proactive. though this is slowly 
>changing as abuse becomes a significant % of network traffic.
>
>-Dan
>
>--
>"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
> Engineering Architecture for the Internet
> fergdawg at netzero.net or
> fergdawg at sbcglobal.net
>
>
>  
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list