Re: BCP 38 coverage if top x providers ...

[Alain Hebert <ahebert () pubnix net>]

    Hi Frank,

    Applying BCP38 at those level is more risky because of the sheer
volume of transit & prefixes.

    For years, people have been working hard pushing the responsibility
of BCP38 to outside their sandbox.

    You may remember one of those instance.

-----
Alain Hebert                                ahebert () pubnix net   
PubNIX Inc.        
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770     Beaconsfield, Quebec     H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.net    Fax: 514-990-9443

On 11/19/16 21:13, Frank Bulk wrote:
> My google fu is failing me, but I believe there was a NANOG posting a year
> or two ago that mentioned that if the top x providers would implement BCP 38
> then y% of the traffic (or Internet) would be de-spoofed.  The point was
> that we don't even need everyone to implement BCP 38, but if the largest
> (transit?) providers did it, then UDP reflection attacks could be minimized.
>
> If someone can recall the key words in that posting and dig it up, that
> would be much appreciated.
>
> Frank