nanog mailing list archives
Re: BCP38 dismissal
From: "John C. A. Bambenek" <bambenek () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:50:13 -0500
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 <jrhett () netconsonance com> 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
Current thread:
- RE: Cisco uRPF failures, (continued)
- RE: Cisco uRPF failures Tom Zingale (tomz) (Sep 15)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Brian Feeny (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Jo Rhett (Sep 03)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Paul Wall (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Mark Tinka (Sep 04)
- uRPF Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: uRPF Mark Tinka (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Paul Wall (Sep 04)
- Re: Force10 Gear - Opinions Dave Israel (Sep 04)
- RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions James Jun (Sep 04)
- BCP38 dismissal Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal John C. A. Bambenek (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 04)
- RE: BCP38 dismissal michael.dillon (Sep 04)
- RE: BCP38 dismissal James Jun (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Paul Wall (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Jo Rhett (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Greg Hankins (Sep 04)
- Re: BCP38 dismissal Paul Wall (Sep 05)