[161966] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Mar 29 09:14:01 2013
In-Reply-To: <020e01ce2c7a$18090680$481b1380$@swan.sk>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:13:35 -0400
To: Adam Vitkovsky <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Adam Vitkovsky <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk> wrote:
>> 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
Hi Adam,
If we go down that path, let's not overload BGP. A distinct source
address advisory protocol could have highly desirable auto-aggregation
and update rate characteristics versus BGP.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
