[161963] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Vitkovsky)
Fri Mar 29 08:37:05 2013
From: Adam Vitkovsky <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk>
To: 'William Herrin' <bill@herrin.us>, <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV6TTmXUzEm3WCekbsc98dKxa+T8XQOTS1Tc7Am-FU42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:36:53 +0100
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> If the best route you pick for the customer's advertisement goes to your
upstream instead of your customer, you won't advertise it to your peer.
> And if your customer sets a BGP community defined to mean "don't advertise
to peers" then you won't advertise it to the peer.
> Yet they may well transmit packets to you for which delivery to that peer
is directed by your routing table.
Yes asymmetric routing would kill the update-based urpf unless there would
be an informational urpf NRLI we could use for these purposes
adam
