nanog mailing list archives
Re: large BCP38 compliance testing
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:44:49 -0500
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:54 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
The *real* problem isn't the testing. It's the assumption that you can actually *do* anything useful with this data. Name-n-shame probably won't get us far - and the way the US works, if there's a
At least "name and shame" is something more useful than nothing done. Ideally you would have transit providers and peering exchanges placing "Must implement BCP38" into their peering policy, and then they could use the data to help enforce their peering policies. -- -JH
Current thread:
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing, (continued)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Alain Hebert (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Roland Dobbins (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Alain Hebert (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Roland Dobbins (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Jared Mauch (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Roland Dobbins (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Jay Ashworth (Oct 03)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Alain Hebert (Oct 06)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Jay Ashworth (Oct 12)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Alain Hebert (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Roland Dobbins (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Jimmy Hess (Oct 05)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Octavio Alvarez (Oct 20)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Roland Dobbins (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Rich Kulawiec (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Mark Andrews (Oct 02)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Rich Kulawiec (Oct 03)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 03)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Alain Hebert (Oct 03)
- Re: large BCP38 compliance testing Matt Palmer (Oct 05)
