nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent BCP-38
From: Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:35:50 -0500 (CDT)
Strict vs. loose. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike () swm pp se> To: "chris" <tknchris () gmail com> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:27:17 AM Subject: Re: Cogent BCP-38 On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, chris wrote:
Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake ....
I am all for people deploying BCP38, but from the original email this is definitely not a cause for celebration. BCP38 should be used against single homed customers only if you're doing it by using uRPF. Otherwise extreme care needs to be taken to make sure traffic isn't dropped because uRPF does the wrong thing (like it seems in this case). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Cogent BCP-38 Ben Russell (Aug 16)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 chris (Aug 16)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 16)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Mike Hammett (Aug 17)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 William Herrin (Aug 17)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Saku Ytti (Aug 17)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Robert Blayzor (Aug 28)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Saku Ytti (Aug 29)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Robert Blayzor (Aug 29)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Job Snijders (Aug 29)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Rob Evans (Aug 29)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Sander Steffann (Aug 30)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 16)
- Re: Cogent BCP-38 chris (Aug 16)