[135250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routing Suggestions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Tue Jan 18 19:48:35 2011
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:54:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <m239ov95lb.wl%randy@psg.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:50:40 -0800
> From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> Subject: Re: Routing Suggestions
>
> i'm with jon and the static crew. brutal but simple.
>
> if you want no leakage, A can filter the prefix from it's upstreams, both
> can low-pref blackhole it, ...
>
One late comment --
OP stated that the companies were exchanging 'sensitive' traffic. I suspect
that they di *NOT* want this traffic to route over the public internet -if-
he private point-to-point link goes down. if they're running any sort of a
dynamic/active routing protocol then -that- route is going to disappear
if/*WHEN* the private link goes down, and the packets will be subject to
whatever other routing rules -- e.g. a 'default' route -- are in place.
This would seem to be a compelling reason to use a static route -- insuring
that traffic _fails_ to route, instead of failing over to a public internet
route, in the event of a link failure.
