BCP 38 coverage if top x providers ...

Alain Hebert ahebert at pubnix.net
Tue Nov 22 15:26:42 UTC 2016

    Hi Frank,

    Applying BCP38 at those level is more risky because of the sheer
volume of transit & prefixes.

    For years, people have been working hard pushing the responsibility
of BCP38 to outside their sandbox.

    You may remember one of those instance.

Alain Hebert                                ahebert at pubnix.net   
PubNIX Inc.        
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770     Beaconsfield, Quebec     H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.net    Fax: 514-990-9443

On 11/19/16 21:13, Frank Bulk wrote:
> My google fu is failing me, but I believe there was a NANOG posting a year
> or two ago that mentioned that if the top x providers would implement BCP 38
> then y% of the traffic (or Internet) would be de-spoofed.  The point was
> that we don't even need everyone to implement BCP 38, but if the largest
> (transit?) providers did it, then UDP reflection attacks could be minimized.
> If someone can recall the key words in that posting and dig it up, that
> would be much appreciated.
> Frank 

More information about the NANOG mailing list