nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:26:41 -0700
In a message written on Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 05:51:02PM +0100, Mike Jones wrote:
If you have a router that sends out RAs with lifetime 0 when the prefix goes away then this should be deployable for "poor mans failover" (the same category I put IPv4 NAT in), however there are
If your provider does Unicast RPF strict mode, which I hope _all_ end user and small business connections default to doing this won't work. The traffic has to be policy routed out based on the source IP. Having the host stack do that is an acceptable solution (your dual router model) I think, but I don't know of a single one that does that today. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?, (continued)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? james machado (Aug 06)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? Owen DeLong (Aug 06)
- IRON vs. BGP (was Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?) Wes Felter (Aug 07)
- Re: IRON vs. BGP (was Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?) Owen DeLong (Aug 07)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? valdis . kletnieks (Aug 07)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? joel jaeggli (Aug 06)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? Chris Boyd (Aug 06)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? Leo Bicknell (Aug 06)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 06)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? Mike Jones (Aug 06)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? Leo Bicknell (Aug 06)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? William Herrin (Aug 06)
- Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? Owen DeLong (Aug 06)