nanog mailing list archives
Re: UDP/123 policers & status
From: Ragnar Sundblad <ragge () kth se>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 00:00:53 +0100
On 28 Mar 2020, at 23:29, Bottiger <bottiger10 () gmail com> wrote:
...
Broken protocols need to be removed and blacklisted at every edge.
A protocol isn’t broken just because it can be abused when spoofed, it is abused. Even TCP can be abused in that way. Should we blacklist and remove TCP?
Pushing the responsibility to BCP38 is unrealistic.
It would help quite a bit against a lot if abuse, and it would be reasonable to include it on a lowest level of technical level to actually get to be called an ISP. So what do the ISP:s want - earn money while doing nothing until the Internet is unusable? I don’t get it. There are enough threats against the open Internet as it is, we don’t need that too. Ragnar
Current thread:
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status, (continued)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Ragnar Sundblad (Mar 29)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Saku Ytti (Mar 29)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Harlan Stenn (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Saku Ytti (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Harlan Stenn (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Saku Ytti (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Ragnar Sundblad (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Harlan Stenn (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Saku Ytti (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Ragnar Sundblad (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP/123 policers & status Ragnar Sundblad (Mar 29)