mailing list archives
Re: BCP38 tester?
From: Peter Baldridge <petebaldridge () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:18:25 -0700
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Jason Lixfeld <jason () lixfeld ca> wrote:
Maybe it's useful for the people who have no idea that their computers are
infected by bots that spoof packets.
I guess I can see that. You then have a question of implementation.
Wouldn't a majority of those customers have a bridged connection with the
providers CPE being a transparent bridged modem. So either a customer's
cheap router (good luck getting those guys to add a feature) would have to
do the check, or the modem would have to check with the router for ip and
then do packet inspection.
I'm not debating that this would be a good fix and eliminate the effect of
botnets, but the home router market isn't going to be influenced by
providers. If it sells at a big box electronics store, it will be
in circulation. It seems that the only people who would care at the home
networking level aren't likely to be contributing to the botnets.
On the other hand, any ISP that would want this as a feature in their
modems, would find it easier to implement on commercial hardware.
It would work and it's a good idea, I just don't see it gaining traction in
the right places to be effective. The answer still rests with providers.
Re: BCP38 tester? Alain Hebert (Apr 01)
Re: BCP38 tester? Peter Baldridge (Apr 01)
- Re: BCP38 tester?, (continued)
Re: BCP38 tester? Jima (Apr 01)
Re: BCP38 tester? Jay Ashworth (Apr 01)
RE: BCP38 tester? Frank Bulk \(iname.com\) (Apr 01)
- Message not available
- Re: BCP38 tester? Peter Baldridge (Apr 01)