Re: Partial vs Full tables

[Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>]

Hey Drew,

> The only time we have ever noticed any sort of operational downside of using uRPF loose was when NTTs router in NYC 
> thought a full table was only 500,000 routes a few years back.

If NTT is 2914 this can no longer happen and it is difficult to see
2914 would ever go back to uRPF. In typical implementation today ACL
is much cheaper than uRPF, so we've migrated to ACL. uRPF value
proposition is mostly on CLI Jockey networks, if configuration are
generated for most use-cases ACL is superior solution anyhow.

In your particular defect, it doesn't seem to matter if uRPF was or
was not enabled, was it dropped by uRPF/loose failure or lookup
failure seems uninteresting (We do not default route).

-- 
  ++ytti