Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

True, but yet another cop out.

If you're not part of the solution, .....

- ferg

-- Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

...

I wrote it, I stand beside it. I'm sick of hearing why people haven't implemented it yet -- it's almost five years later and there's simply no excuse. It's sickening.

it's cheaper to ignore bcp38 than to implement it.

Well NANOG wants to have it both ways: -Boo the providers who bill for spoofed packets -Wish it wasnt cheaper to do nothing to ensure packets leaving your network are not spoofed I vote providers should charge triple or more for ( reaction,detection and supression costs caused by) spoofed packets coming from their transit customers. Now we have incentive on both sides. The provider to identify this traffic and the customer to stop it. (Dont POTS telcos offer something like this?) The same will encourage customers to start asking for QOS and rate limiting. Now when the Provider shuts you down they have done you a nice financial favor. Toss in the the option for "spoof insurance" whereby the customer pays extra to insure that any spoofed packets from his network are not billed for and it gets a little more confusing.

operators are reactive to abuse, not proactive. though this is slowly changing as abuse becomes a significant % of network traffic.

-Dan

-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net