[107564] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco uRPF failures
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Sat Sep 6 15:13:13 2008
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:13:06 -0400
From: "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
To: "Anton Kapela" <tkapela@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2e9d8ae50809061020x24bdfbf0x3ddcfe3ed8518df2@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 9/6/08, Anton Kapela <tkapela@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
>
> > found a network operator using uRPF on Cisco gear.
> > (note: network operator. it's probably fine for several-hundred-meg
> > enterprise sites)
>
>
> Forgive me, but what does bits/sec have to do with anything?
>
it's possible that on some platforms the uRPF check happens on the
main processor, or on a linecard processor. So, bps rates (proxied for
by pps rates) matter greatly, on those platforms.
-Chris
