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

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Leif Johansson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Skickat från min iPhone
> 
>> 31 dec. 2015 kl. 18:04 skrev Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 31, 2015, at 5:00 AM, Leif Johansson <[e-mail]> 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