IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 31 December 2015 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 D951B1A906B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:51:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 mMWdCa8lEC7Z for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 460591A9058 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3861203AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:57:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168986379D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:50:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?
In-Reply-To: <DE81772E-22BA-45CE-A1B8-9E1BB34C0460@puck.nether.net>
References: <7664F94E-F7A6-4556-B1E6-2DE536A7B7FC@frobbit.se> <5684FCDB.7010009@mnt.se> <A074CA07-691E-41A7-B1D7-33F4ECBED5A9@puck.nether.net> <568579FB.6030702@gmail.com> <DE81772E-22BA-45CE-A1B8-9E1BB34C0460@puck.nether.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:50:58 -0500
Message-ID: <28253.1451605858@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_GLLznhaCcrskc_bf3FEHMY7k5E>
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 23:51:01 -0000

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
    > But for the small percentage of spoofed packets, the cost on the rest
    > is so high when we are often PPS limited on even the largest routers.
    > The 40-byte packet benchmark of
    > the late 90s isn’t seen today.

Tragedy of the commons...  the cost here is balanced by the root name server
operators dealing with regular multi-Gb/s attacks.

(The last one, which seems to have been the largest to date, it is unclear to
me if it was with forged source address)

http://www.root-servers.org/news/events-of-20151130.txt

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email