Not being an IP-routing person, but chair of SSAC in ICANN, I hear people for the reasons you bring up are more in favor of a mechanism where one talk about explicitly "filtering at the edge of the Internet" and not at every point where routes are exchanged. Because of this, please also include SAC004 in your investigation. <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-004-en.htm> Patrik On 9 jan 2014, at 16:09, John R Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was at a meeting talking to ops people from some large ISPs, who tell me that when they tell their large customers about BCP 38, the customers say forget it, because they're multihomed. I gather the situation is typically that the customer has multiple address ranges, say from providers A and B. Normally traffic from range A goes out through provider A, and vice-versa, except sometimes when it doesn't. Sometimes it's failover, or it may be deliberate asymmetic routing. The customers may not be running BGP, or if they do, they don't want to announce range A to provider B for business reasons I don't entirely understand but that are not going away. > > The ISPs tell me that the customers are often ISPs themselves, so there are lots of address ranges, far more than anyone could track manually even if they wanted to. > > I see BCP 84, which is now ten years old. The ISPs are aware of it, but it doesn't seem to have done the trick. I can think of some hacks to pseudo-announce ranges for filtering purposes, but surely I am not the only person to have noticed this problem. What have people done to address this issue?* I figure the first thing to do is to understand what's failed before. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxxx, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. > > * - other than calling the customers stupid, which they are not, and is not helpful >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail