On 2013-02-22, at 13:55, Jo Rhett <jrh...@netconsonance.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: >> at which point it's easier to fix source address validation and make THAT >> universal. which we already know can't be done. > > Don't confuse "won't" with "can't". It absolutely can be done. It won't be > done because the carriers see profit in laziness, and see no profit in > stopping criminals.
Before everybody starts waving red flags and marching in the streets: - the carriers of which you speak are big companies; - big companies with staff who care about BCP38 have likely already deployed it; - big companies with non-trivial networks who have yet to deploy it need a business reason to do so, since the implementation and support costs are likely enough to be significant that there's probably no room under the radar to do it there; - companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to act according to a profit motive; - there is no profit motive in "increase my costs so that I can decrease the costs of my competitors." If you can describe BCP38 deployment in a non-trivial network such that deployment is to the benefit of shareholders and non-deployment is not, I'm all ears. Absent regulation and punitive fines for non-compliance, I don't see it. If there's a logical or practical fallacy in here, someone please point it out. (As if I have to type that.) Joe _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
