Please let us know your results. Jared Mauch
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:55 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote: >>>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:52 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: >>>> Those that are up in arms about this stuff seem to not be the ones asking >>>> the vendors for features and fixes. >>> >>> Like I said, the "tier 1's" can't be the source of the solution until >>> they stop being part of the problem. >> >> This is the attitude that I've seen elsewhere that is devoid of any meat. >> As I said before, we hit a big preventing the ability to do this even if >> we wanted to. The impact is drop all traffic or permit all in that case. > > Hi Jared, > > I'm not confident you caught the implications of what I said. At the > reciprocal peering link, you don't drop the spoofed traffic. You let > it flow. You then charge a penalty when it turns out the peering > traffic includes spoofed packets. The impact isn't drop or permit. > It's dollars. Those who can't or won't control their customer links > (where they trivially know what addresses are allowed) start to pay > large amounts of money where they peer. More money than it takes to to > properly implement customer-link filters so that they don't send > spoofed packets to the peer. > > No new tech. No blocking. Just cashflow. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
