On 30 Aug 2017, at 6:38 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Op 29 aug. 2017, om 15:29 heeft Rob Evans het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> Well, if you are using public IP addresses for infra you are violating your
>>> RIR’s policy more than likely.
>>
>> [Citation needed.] :)
>
> I am p
Really surprised that AS174 put in place any anti-spoofing.
We are bgp-transit customer of CGNT and received traffic originated from
RFC1918 on our public p2p link with them
On 15.08.2017 17:36, Ben Russell wrote:
> Could someone from Cogent contact me off-list? We are having an issue with
> one
Hi,
> Op 29 aug. 2017, om 15:29 heeft Rob Evans het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>> Well, if you are using public IP addresses for infra you are violating your
>> RIR’s policy more than likely.
>
> [Citation needed.] :)
I am pretty confident that I know those policies well enough to say that you
> Well, if you are using public IP addresses for infra you are violating your
> RIR’s policy more than likely.
[Citation needed.] :)
Rob
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:41:12AM -0400, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> > On 29 August 2017 at 03:38, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> >
> >> Well not completely useless. BCP will still drop BOGONs at the edge
> >> before they leak into your network.
> >
> > Assuming you don't use them in your own infra. And c
> On 29 August 2017 at 03:38, Robert Blayzor wrote:
>
>> Well not completely useless. BCP will still drop BOGONs at the edge before
>> they leak into your network.
>
> Assuming you don't use them in your own infra. And cost of RPF is lot
> higher than cost of ACL. Them being entirely static ent
On 29 August 2017 at 03:38, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> Well not completely useless. BCP will still drop BOGONs at the edge before
> they leak into your network.
Assuming you don't use them in your own infra. And cost of RPF is lot
higher than cost of ACL. Them being entirely static entities they
s
> On Aug 17, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Doesn't loose mode URPF allow packets from anything that exists in the
> routing table regardless of source? Seems just about worthless. You're
> allowing the site to spoof anything in the routing table which is NOT
> BCP38.
Well not comp
On 17 August 2017 at 16:11, William Herrin wrote:
> Doesn't loose mode URPF allow packets from anything that exists in the
> routing table regardless of source? Seems just about worthless. You're
> allowing the site to spoof anything in the routing table which is NOT
> BCP38.
Correct. uRPF/loose
Give me a contact and I might send enough cupcakes for most of
their engineers =D
PS: Progression pain is still progression.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Strict vs. loose.
>
Hi Mike,
Doesn't loose mode URPF allow packets from anything that exists in the
routing table regardless of source? Seems just about worthless. You're
allowing the site to spoof anything in the routing table which is NOT
Strict vs. loose.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mikael Abrahamsson"
To: "chris"
Cc: "NANOG list"
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 1
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, chris wrote:
Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake
I am all for people deploying BCP38, but from the original email this is
definitely not a cause for celebration. BCP38 should be used against
single homed customers only if you're doing it by using uRPF. Otherw
Time for someone to bake them a bcp38 cake
On Aug 16, 2017 4:04 PM, "Ben Russell" wrote:
> Could someone from Cogent contact me off-list? We are having an issue
> with one of our downstream customers who is multi-homed to another
> carrier. The end customer is advertising their prefix to
14 matches
Mail list logo
