On 10/26/2012 7:11 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Oct 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, paul vixie wrote: > >> this sounds like a new application of 'the chemical polluter business model'. > There's more to it than that, though. It's important to understand that > those who are purchasing and deploying network gear often are nonspecialists, > and so frustrations, project delays, etc. would crop up in the customer > organizations - who would then complain vociferously to the network > infrastructure vendors and/or simply switch to a vendor which didn't enable > anti-spoofing as a default.
i just don't see it. there isn't more to it than that. from the point of view of everyone on the connected internet, it is a bad idea to let some new person connect some new router that forwards packets, if that person is unaware of the s.a.v. issue. if a vendor won't make s.a.v. the default because they need the new business and they don't want the training burden of making sure they understand the issues of s.a.v., then they are following the 'chemical polluter business model' where the money is made "here" and the impact is only felt "over there". paul _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
