BCP38 adoption "incentives"?
jsklein at gmail.com
Tue Sep 27 13:52:38 UTC 2016
What would it take to test for BCP38 for a specific AS?
"Inveniam viam aut faciam"
PGP Fingerprint: 295E 2691 F377 C87D 2841 00C1 4174 FEDF 8ECF 0CC8
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Stephen Satchell <list at satchell.net> wrote:
> Does anyone know if any upstream and tiered internet providers include in
> their connection contracts a mandatory requirement that all
> directly-connected routers be in compliance with BCP38?
> Does anyone know if large ISPs like Comcast, Charter, or AT&T have put in
> place internal policies requiring retail/business-customer-aggregating
> routers to be in compliance with BCP38?
> Does any ISP, providing business Internet connectivity along with a block
> of IP addresses, include language in their contracts that any directly
> connected router must be in compliance with BCP38?
> I've seen a lot of moaning and groaning about how BCP38 is pretty much
> being ignored. Education is one way to help, but that doesn't hit anyone
> in the wallet. You have to motivate people to go out of their way to
> *learn* about BCP38; most business people are too busy with things that
> make them money to be concerned with "Internet esoterica" that doesn't add
> to the bottom line. You have to make their ignorance SUBTRACT from the
> bottom line.
> Contracts, properly enforced, can make a huge dent in the problem of BCP38
> adoption. At a number of levels.
> Equipment manufacturers not usually involved in this sort of thing (home
> and SOHO market) would then have market incentive to provide equipment at
> the low end that would provide BCP38 support. Especially equipment
> manufacturers that incorporate embedded Linux in their products. They can
> be creative in how they implement their product; let creativity blossom.
> I know, I know, BCP38 was originally directed at Internet Service
> Providers at their edge to upstreams. I'm thinking that BCP38 needs to be
> in place at any point -- every point? -- where you have a significant-sized
> collection of systems/devices aggregated to single upstream connections.
> Particular systems/devices where any source address can be generated and
> propagated -- including compromised desktop computers, compromised light
> bulbs, compromised wireless routers, compromised you-name-it.
> (That is one nice thing about NAT -- the bad guys can't build spoofed
> packets. They *can* build, um, "other" packets...which is a different
> subject entirely.)
> (N.B.: Now you know why I'm trying to get the simplest possible
> definition of BCP38 into words. The RFCs don't contain "executive
More information about the NANOG