BCP38 Deployment

Wed Mar 28 23:35:02 UTC 2012

In a message written on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 02:49:02PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Tier 1       T640 core network with 10GE handoff
> > Regional     Cisco GSR network with 1GE handoff
> > Local        1006 to Arris CMTS
> > Subscriber   Motorola Cable Modem to NetGear SOHO Gateway
> > User         Patron with Airport Express sharing a wired connection to WiFi
> > ...
> > If you were going to write it into law/regulation, where would you require it?
> 
> Seems to me that from a legislator's perspective, there is a pretty bright (as in "moth attracted to flame") line between "subscriber" and "provider".

The counterpoint I would offer is their are the most lobbiests and
lawyers on the "provider" side of that equation, and indeed in the
entire stack best I can tell.

> And the incentive for CPE manufacturers to invest in the small software cost is?

The "provders" are large buyers of much of the CPE, and in some
cases get to approve what CPE gets attached to their network.  They
can push this on the CPE manufacturers, and should.

I suspect if legislators tried to push the issue their lobbiests
and lawyers would attempt to stall and deflect, and that would be
the direction.

Many places already have laws that running an unsecured WiFi network
is the subscriber's problem, not the providers.  There's already
operational and legal precident that the person running that end
router should be responsible.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120328/a63e4964/attachment.sig>