deprecating BCP38 and similar

Stephen J. Wilcox steve at
Tue Oct 12 11:21:28 UTC 2004

with everything you should look at the effort, the returns and the risks. some 
simple things can have major benefits but we shouldnt waste effort on major 
changes that have little effect and that can be circumvented (i'm referring to 
the port 25 blocking discussion of course, wrt bcp38 i dont think anyone [with 
clue] thinks its not worthwhile)


On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote:

> I think I'll change my position on BCP38.  It's pointless to try
> blocking spoofed source addresses because:
> * It doesn't solve every single problem
> * It means more effort for service providers
> * It requires more CPU processing power
> * Using it will generate smarter "black hats".
> I also think everyone should drop all forms of IP ACLs and
> password checking.  Neither of those have solved every Internet
> problem, they require more effort and CPU, and smarter crackers
> have surfaced as a result of their deployment.  These measures
> are ineffective, and it is silly to waste time with them.
> Anyone from Microsoft listening?  I suggest you terminate your
> Trustworthy Computing Initiative.  Not every problem is caused by
> a buffer overrun or race condition, and you're wasting billions
> of dollars.  I suggest you post regularly to NANOG, helping
> educate the masses that anything less than a silver bullet is
> wasteful.
> Eddy, who hopes everyone recognizes hyperbole and sarcasm
> --
> Everquick Internet -
> A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. -
> Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
> Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
> Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
> _________________________________________________________________
> DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
> davidc at -*- jfconmaapaq at -*- sam at
> Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.

More information about the NANOG mailing list