North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: BCP38 dismissal

  • From: Jo Rhett
  • Date: Thu Sep 04 13:23:05 2008

On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jo Rhett <[email protected]> wrote:
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?

uRPF is important. But all the uRPF in the world won't protect you against a little tcp/{22,23,179} SYN aimed at your Force 10 box.

Ya know what I mean?


No. Because our F10s aren't suspectible to that, period. I think this whole "control panel policing" is flat out wrong, but honestly to argue that point I'd have to do some research into what Cisco is doing these days (never had most of the good anti-dos and flood-control stuff F10 has last time I looked) and frankly, it's not within my scope of work so I left that alone.

The focus of my comment was on the "BCP38 isn't important", because *THAT* is something that causes grief for me (and everyone) in the day job.

--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness