nanog mailing list archives
Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers?
From: Stephen Stuart <stuart () tech org>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:24:50 -0700
Am I missing something obvious here?
Try announcing the remainder of yopur prefixes with either a couple prepends, or see if SprintLink supports the use of communities to control advertisement (you want SprintLink to prefer the paths they learn from you in case it's strict uRPF, but not pass those announcements along to preserve your current inbound policy as much as possible). That will (in theory) let you advertise all your prefixes to SprintLink with minimal change to traffic flow, and if your dropped-traffic problem goes away then you'll have a good supporting argument in favor of the explanation that uRPF is in effect. Stephen
Current thread:
- URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? will (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Pete Templin (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Joe Maimon (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Stephen Stuart (Jun 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? christian . macnevin (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Andre Oppermann (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Patrick W. Gilmore (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Patrick W. Gilmore (Jun 03)
- RE: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Olsen, Jason (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? christian . macnevin (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Andre Oppermann (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Joe Abley (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Joe Maimon (Jun 03)
- Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers? Andre Oppermann (Jun 03)