nanog mailing list archives
Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:17:37 +0200 (CEST)
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Zbyněk Pospíchal wrote:
The implementation of BCP38 over local market strongly increased after massive DDoS attacks in 2013 affecting major part of the industry thanks to an initiative of the most important local IXP.
Hm, so the IX operator looks at packets at the IX (sFlow perhaps), see who is sending attack packets, and if they're spoofed, this ISP is then put in "quarantine", ie their IX port is basically now useless.
That's an effective way of achieving local compliance. Wonder how this would work in other markets, commonly it's bad business to deny service to paying customers... But if most agree that this should be done, it's definitely a way to achieve compliance.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Stephen Satchell (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Zbyněk Pospíchal (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Zbyněk Pospíchal (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Zbyněk Pospíchal (Sep 28)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Zbyněk Pospíchal (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mike Jones (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Joe Klein (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Alain Hebert (Sep 28)