[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty

I think the media fire about this will enlighten many c level executives. After that, it's a matter of them saying "go do this". You can't get any traction if there isn't a perceived issue, from what I've seen anyways. I still think the ipv4 to 6 transition will require media outlets running special coverage on the end of the Internet because we broke it by not addressing issues. I've shouted from roof tops on various occasions, only to hear months later about how we should have seen something coming. Get CNN to run Nanog has a solution and watch the hordes gather. People slow down on the freeway to see an accident, they'll slow down long enough to see what's happened and drive off. When their house is on fire, it's a completely different story.

>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.

-------- Original message --------
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Date: 03/27/2013 3:33 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty

On Mar 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>
>> Umm... How many North American ISP's/datacenters/web hosting firms were
>> aware of the BCP 38 development as it was on-going, and participated in
>> some manner in its review?  ...
> I'd say enough were aware. :-)
> 8. Acknowledgments
>   The North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) [5] group as a
>   whole deserves special credit for openly discussing these issues and
>   actively seeking possible solutions. Also, thanks to Justin Newton
>   [Priori Networks] and Steve Bielagus [IronBridge Networks].  for
>   their comments and contributions.

Mark -

  That's plenty of consideration for voluntary efforts (which is what
  we've tried to date in various forums with rather limited success...)

  Whether that's sufficient notice and consideration on which to base
  mandatory requirements from a public policy perspective is not clear.

  Frankly, I would suggest that NANOG document a best common operating
  practice (BCOP) based on BCP38 (written at a somewhat higher level
  which describes what types of connections ingress filtering it applies
  to, e.g. consumer edge, business, transit, etc.; whether it should
  be just a customer default or an absolute requirement, etc.), and
  then holding an approval process to make the result a NANOG BCOP...
  If this were done in a fairly formal manner, the result would be closer
  to the prior example (National Fire Protection Association code) and
  would far more convincing both in aiding governments to pick up this
  cause in the region, as well as encouraging similar efforts elsewhere.