Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 31 December 2015 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3581A892F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:27:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gSmUJYf_lQ7N for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E63B1A892E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:401:3:6a00:d541:7674:527b:16ca] (unknown [IPv6:2601:401:3:6a00:d541:7674:527b:16ca]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B403654093A; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:27:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <0A10E9CC-C5D3-4FD7-9589-B91374CADE34@mnt.se>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:27:36 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9ED80B3B-E1B4-48B0-B3E2-F02857179301@puck.nether.net>
References: <7664F94E-F7A6-4556-B1E6-2DE536A7B7FC@frobbit.se> <5684FCDB.7010009@mnt.se> <A074CA07-691E-41A7-B1D7-33F4ECBED5A9@puck.nether.net> <0A10E9CC-C5D3-4FD7-9589-B91374CADE34@mnt.se>
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HBXFiFg9qovxD9KV8ZQ75BxR3N8>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:27:39 -0000

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Skickat från min iPhone
> 
>> 31 dec. 2015 kl. 18:04 skrev Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>et>:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 31, 2015, at 5:00 AM, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2015-12-31 06:16, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>> Is this connected to the fact that not even people developing standards
>>>> use very same standards?
>>> 
>>> The problem is that we don't have enough dogs on our tasting panels: we
>>> need to get more ops folks directly & actively involved in the IETF.
>>> 
>>> Examining some of our success stories I suspect we'd find extensive
>>> involvement from operations in every case.
>> 
>> Sadly that’s not the case here.
>> 
>> The reason we (as an operator) can’t use BCP-38 is the vendor hardware can’t do it at line-rate and the performance hit is too much to sustain.
>> 
>> Sorry to disappoint.  We even dropped it as a requirement in 2015 because it was clear the gap was getting wider not narrower.
>> 
>> Happy to discuss in person in BA or anywhere else we end up at the same time.
>> 
>> - Jared
> 
> I dunno if that is true or not but in either case you just proved my point.

That’s not to say I’m not in favor of BCP-38, it’s just that we are often the wrong place to do the drops as well, spoofed packets should get addressed.  It’s often hard to describe topologies and while RPSL might be a technique to do it, and it’s a standards based way to describe these things, it’s certainly not commonly used.

- Jared