mailing list archives
Re: Are we really this helpless? (Re: isprime DOS in progress)
From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:13:14 -0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews () isc org> wrote:
BCP 38 isn't a license, it's a technique.
There are plenty of cases in common law where as a owner
of something and you havn't taken reasonable steps to protect
or prevent injury that, were well known, you will be proved
to be negligent.
BCP 38 is falling into that sort of category.
Every operator here should be worried about what will happen
when someone decides to sue them to recover damaged caused
by spoofed traffic. It's just a matter of time before this
happens. Remember every router inspects packets to the
level required to implement BCP 38. This is not deep packet
inspection. This is address inspection which every router
Did you know about "BCP 38"?
What steps did you take to implement "BCP 38"?
I suspect that a lawyer will be able to demonstrate to a
judge that even as a common carrier that a operator should
have been deploying BCP 38.
I think each point above is true -- BCP38 is indeed a technique, but
failure to universally implement it defaults to (almost) a tragedy of the
After ~10 years, it is surreal to me that we, as a community, are still
grappling with issues where it could be beneficial for the Internet
community at-large. I mean, it _is_ a BCP.
- - ferg
p.s. Even when Dan Senie and I drafted RFC2827/BCP38, we were doing nothing
more than documenting what everyone (well, maybe not everyone) already knew
anyway -- that we all need to bite the bullet and just do it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/