BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]

Livingood, Jason Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com
Wed Feb 5 18:06:59 UTC 2014


Cool, thanks for the pointed. Now if we could get the data by ASN and
publish it on a site like bcp38.info, that would be awesome.



On 2/4/14, 11:03 PM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:

>Here's such a report:
>
>http://spoofer.cmand.org/summary.php
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:53 PM
>To: Octavio Alvarez; North American Network Operators' Group
>Subject: Re: BCP38 [Was: Re: TWC (AS11351) blocking all NTP?]
>
>On 2/4/14, 7:48 PM, "Octavio Alvarez" <alvarezp at alvarezp.ods.org> wrote:
>
>>What I'm failing to understand, and again, please excuse me if I'm
>>oversimplifying, is what data do you need from researchers,
>>specifically. What specific actionable data would be helpful? Why does
>>the lack of the data prevent you from applying an ACL.
>
>What I am suggesting is that the community at large needs measurement
>data, rather than individual network operators (which already know if they
>do or do not implement BCP38). Only with a long list of operators that DO
>prevent spoofing and a list of those that DO NOT, backed up with a decent
>data set (enough measurement points, enough measurement tests, across
>enough time, with an openly shared methodology), can the community start
>to encourage non-adopters to change their position. Just my two cents
>though...
>
>Jason
>
>
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list