I think the media fire about this will enlighten many c level executives. After that, it's a matter of them saying "go do this". You can't get any traction if there isn't a perceived issue, from what I've seen anyways. I still think the ipv4 to 6 transition will require media outlets running special coverage on the end of the Internet because we broke it by not addressing issues. I've shouted from roof tops on various occasions, only to hear months later about how we should have seen something coming. Get CNN to run Nanog has a solution and watch the hordes gather. People slow down on the freeway to see an accident, they'll slow down long enough to see what's happened and drive off. When their house is on fire, it's a completely different story.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> Date: 03/27/2013 3:33 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty On Mar 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
Umm... How many North American ISP's/datacenters/web hosting firms were aware of the BCP 38 development as it was on-going, and participated in some manner in its review? ...
I'd say enough were aware. :-)
8. Acknowledgments
The North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) [5] group as a whole deserves special credit for openly discussing these issues and actively seeking possible solutions. Also, thanks to Justin Newton [Priori Networks] and Steve Bielagus [IronBridge Networks]. for their comments and contributions.
Mark - That's plenty of consideration for voluntary efforts (which is what we've tried to date in various forums with rather limited success...) Whether that's sufficient notice and consideration on which to base mandatory requirements from a public policy perspective is not clear. Frankly, I would suggest that NANOG document a best common operating practice (BCOP) based on BCP38 (written at a somewhat higher level which describes what types of connections ingress filtering it applies to, e.g. consumer edge, business, transit, etc.; whether it should be just a customer default or an absolute requirement, etc.), and then holding an approval process to make the result a NANOG BCOP... <http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog57/presentations/Monday/mon.general.Grundemann.BCOP.12.pdf> If this were done in a fairly formal manner, the result would be closer to the prior example (National Fire Protection Association code) and would far more convincing both in aiding governments to pick up this cause in the region, as well as encouraging similar efforts elsewhere. FYI, /John