To:
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
cc:
Lars-Johan Liman <liman@sunet.se>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"Brian W. Spolarich" <briansp@walid.com>
Date:
Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:30:52 +0000 (UCT)
In-Reply-To:
<39996CA0.EB84C830@senie.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: wrt: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-00.txt
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Daniel Senie wrote: | The same argument can be made for other BCPs I've worked on, Ingress | filtering (RFC 2827) and directed broadcast disable (RFC 2644). One of | the reasons to publish a BCP is to remind folks that something might | be for the good of the whole 'net. While each of these areas is less | useful to the network operator themselves, when they're affected by | someone else's network not doing these things, they might change their | minds. The ingress filtering proposal was also known as the 'good neighbor policy' if I recall correctly. I think that this proposal can be positioned similarly. Realistically most large ISPs didn't do a great job of implementing that proposal (I know UUNET doesn't for example, and we tried to implement this at ANS but the effort involved made it somewhat infeasible), but least there was a document that said what operators 'should' be doing. -bws