BCP 38 coverage if top x providers ...
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Mon Nov 28 02:44:30 UTC 2016
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net>
> To: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:44:09 AM
> Subject: Re: BCP 38 coverage if top x providers ...
>> On Nov 19, 2016, at 9:13 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> 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.
> If you assume 80% of traffic comes out of your local CDN node, that remaining
> may not be too difficult for you to do something with. The problem appears
> various engineering thresholds that existed in the 90s have been violated.
> 40(64) byte packet testing is no longer the norm by vendors. Those of us who
> a full table and are expected to provide all the features are the minority in
> purchasing equipment by volume and revenue so the push is harder. A double
> of the packet is twice as expensive and perhaps impractical in some (or many)
It was me, Frank, as I said in an offlist email your mail server a) didn't
like and b) took 4 days to complain about. :-)
I believe I said "top 10" or "top 20" eyeball carriers, and I was shooting
from the hip, based on my apprehension of the sizes there of. 80/20 rule, as
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
More information about the NANOG