BCP 38 coverage if top x providers ...
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Fri Mar 24 15:07:50 UTC 2017
* Jared Mauch:
>> 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
>> If someone can recall the key words in that posting and dig it up, that
>> would be much appreciated.
> A double lookup of the packet is twice as expensive and perhaps
> impractical in some (or many) cases.
Do you actually have to filter all packets?
Or could you just sample a subset and police the offenders, on the
assumption that if you don't implement an anti-spoofing policy, you
end up with near-constant leakage?
More information about the NANOG