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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 01 January 2016 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 B2E201A6FA8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2016 00:25:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.09
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 a-ykU9FJxiTT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2016 00:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF7F61A6FA7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jan 2016 00:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1aEv1X-00049I-Vh; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:25:24 +0000
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 17:25:22 +0900
Message-ID: <m2k2ntg0zx.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "\"Patrik Fältström\"" <paf@frobbit.se>
Subject: Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?
In-Reply-To: <1C7E4F9C-C1D4-4383-98D8-65D48CC7BEE8@frobbit.se>
References: <7664F94E-F7A6-4556-B1E6-2DE536A7B7FC@frobbit.se> <56856B35.9090202@bogus.com> <1C7E4F9C-C1D4-4383-98D8-65D48CC7BEE8@frobbit.se>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SpuzIucYqH8-MR1xpqrYD_pg3vY>
Cc: IETF Disgust List <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: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:25:26 -0000

>> While we might choose to restrict our definition of edge filtering to
>> the single-homed customers of retail ISPs, there are rather a lot of
>> those. There is on the other hand a plurality of transit ISPs that
>> cannot implement BCP 38 as envisioned or even something close to it.
> 
> Completely agree, so why not start with the single home customers.
> What about look at default configuration of CPEs and alike?  What
> about...I just do not know. Something just must be done.

go to isoc manrs, sign up to have your logo on the glossies, and then go
home and make major blunders.  after all, a number of big isps are doing
it.

and, in the meantime, ietf idealists can continue to blame operators,
operators can continue to blame vendors (and ietf idealists), and
vendors can ask where the cash comes from.  and therein lies the
disconnect.  the pain is far removed from the basic causes.  this
generally does not work out very well.

randy, who should have stayed out of this silliness