IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Fri, 01 January 2016 00:20 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 77B2F1A9092 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:20:15 -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 RdJPpQYFkjdx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78C81A908F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:401:3:6a00:68d5:e71c:231f:5590] (unknown [IPv6:2601:401:3:6a00:68d5:e71c:231f:5590]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF1255408A4; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:20:11 -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: <28253.1451605858@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:20:11 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1DAA5C76-A8AD-4007-BA07-D2681B845013@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> <28253.1451605858@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lNEzhMBavJF6BPhMl9niACPiC1s>
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: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:20:15 -0000

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 6:50 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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

Yup, not news to me (at least).  We have a lot of DNS providers, including
root servers behind our network.  It’s often cheaper to throw more servers
and bandwidth at the problem.

- Jared

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email