North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: BCP38 dismissal
- From: Patrick W. Gilmore
- Date: Thu Sep 04 13:06:18 2008
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Count you which way? You seem to agree with me. Everyone should be
doing both, not discounting BCP38 because they aren't seeing an
attack right now.
No one sees attacks that BCP38 would stop?
Wow, I thought things like the Kaminsky bug were big news. I guess
all that was for nothing?
(Yes, I am being sarcastic. Anyone who thinks attacks which BCP 38
would stop are not happening in the wild is .. I believe the phrase
used was "confused and misinformed".)
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:50 AM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
Count me in.
There is no reason to limit our defenses to the one thing that we
think is important at one instance in time... attackers change and
adapt and multimodal defense is simply good policy.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Jo Rhett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box (cp-
policer/control
plane filtering) is far more important IMO than implementing
BCP38 when
much
of attack traffic comes from legitimate IP sources anyway (see
botnets).
I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood.
Sure, yes,
protecting yourself is so much more important than protecting
anyone else.
Anyone else want to stand up and join the "I am an asshole" club?
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open
source and
other randomness
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
|