North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems

  • From: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Mon Oct 11 17:59:44 2004 

Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
True, but yet another cop out.

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

- ferg

-- Dan Hollis <[email protected]> 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
[email protected] or
[email protected]