Filter NTP traffic by packet size?

joel jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sun Feb 23 20:31:16 UTC 2014


On 2/23/14, 12:11 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Royce Williams <royce at techsolvency.com> wrote:
>> Newb question ... other than retrofitting, what stands in the way of
>> making BCP38 a condition of peering?

Peering is frequently but harldy exclusively on a best effort basis,
e.g. you agree to exchange traffic, but also agree to hold each other
harmless if something bad happens. that's any easy enough contract for
most entities to enter into

> In other words ... if it's a problem of awareness, could upstreams
> automate warning their downstreams?  What about teaching RADb to
> periodically test for BCP38 compliance, send soft warnings (with links
> to relevant pages on www.bcp38.info), and publish stats?
> 
> Continuing my naïveté ...what if upstreams required BCP38 compliance
> before updating BGP filters? 

my upstreams adjust their filters when I update radb.

> This would require a soft rollout --
> we'd have to give them a few months' warning to not interfere with
> revenue streams -- but it sounds like nothing's going to change until
> it starts hitting the pocketbooks.
> 
> Royce
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140223/53adef17/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list