nanog mailing list archives
Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:31:09 -0700
In a message written on Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:44:35PM +0000, White, Andrew wrote:
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.
Unicast RFP should be a feature every ISP requires of all edge devices for at least 15 years now. It should be on by default for virtually all connections, and disabled only by request or when there are circumstances to suggest it would break things (e.g. a request for BGP with full tables over the link). At this point there's no excuse, anyone who has gear who can't do that has been asleep at the switch. It's been a standard feature in too much gear for too long. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: BCP38 adoption "incentives"?, (continued)
- 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)