3 ms·
> BCP38 is designed to filter such spoofed traffic, so that it never even traverses the network of an ISP that’s adopted the anti-spoofing measures. However, th
by a3n 10y ago
> BCP38 is designed to filter such spoofed traffic, so that it never even traverses the network of an ISP that’s adopted the anti-spoofing measures. However, there are non-trivial economic reasons that many ISPs fail to adopt this best practice.
So, it costs too much to run clean internet pipes.
As the internet is a major part of the economy, as well as access to government (as well as government access to surveillance), it's probably time to regulate ISPs and related players for healthy operation, like water utilities.
- meanduck 10y agoNo No No. There are probably ~100K of ISPs, many of them in judicially-weak countries. This will never work. ISPs are not the problem. Its fundamental oversight in routing architecture of internet. BCP38 is Best Current Practice. Not a protocol requirement. Once it becomes a requirement this will be solved in a week. The 5 RIRs[1] are the non-profit organizations that allocates IPs and regulates ASNs. I dont know how but we (or the big internet boys) should petition them to force ASNs to fix their routers. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Internet_registry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Internet_registry
- a3n 10y ago> No No No. There are probably ~100K of ISPs, Good point. I was thinking in a US-centric way. Still, I'd like my ISPs in the US to be the internet equivalent of lead-free water.
- pjc50 10y agoIn the current lobbying environment you're more likely to end up with a statutory minimum of lead in your ISP (surveillance, filtering, anti-competitive measures, anti-net-neutrality, etc)