nanog mailing list archives
Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:40:37 -0400
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:44:35 -0000, "White, Andrew" said:
This assumes the ISP manages the customer's CPE or home router, which is often not the case. Adding such ACLs to the upstream device, operated by the ISP, is not always easy or feasible.
Hopefully, if you've been burnt by this, you remembered to add it to the requirements list for the next time you buy customer-facing gear.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?, (continued)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Joe Klein (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Alain Hebert (Sep 28)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Miquel van Smoorenburg (Sep 28)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mike Hammett (Sep 27)
- RE: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? White, Andrew (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mike Hammett (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Wesley George (Sep 28)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mike Hammett (Sep 28)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Nick Hilliard (Sep 28)
- RE: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? White, Andrew (Sep 27)
- RE: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Peter Beckman (Sep 27)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 28)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Leo Bicknell (Sep 29)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Alain Hebert (Sep 29)
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"? Mark Andrews (Sep 29)