nanog mailing list archives
Re: uPRF strict more
From: Adam Thompson <athompson () merlin mb ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:07:33 +0000
We just ran into a typical case where uRPF caused a partial outage for one of my customers: the customer is multi-homed, with another provider that I'm also connected to. Customer advertised a longer-prefix to the other guy, so I started sending traffic destined for Customer to the Other Provider... who then promptly dropped it because they had uRPF enabled on the peering link, and they were seeing random source IPs that weren't mine. Well... yeah, that can happen (semi-legitimately) anytime you have a topological triangle in peering. I've concluded over the last 2 years that uRPF is only useful on interfaces pointing directly at non-multi-homed customers, and actively dangerous anywhere else. -Adam Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services [1593169877849] 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson () merlin mb ca<mailto:athompson () merlin mb ca> www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/> ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+athompson=merlin.mb.ca () nanog org> on behalf of Amir Herzberg <amir.lists () gmail com> Sent: September 28, 2021 20:06 To: Randy Bush <randy () psg com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: uPRF strict more Randy, great question. I'm teaching that it's very rarely, if ever, used (due to high potential for benign loss); it's always great to be either confirmed or corrected... So if anyone replies just to Randy - pls cc me too (or, Randy, if you could sum up and send to list or me - thanks!) Amir -- Amir Herzberg Comcast professor of Security Innovations, Computer Science and Engineering, University of Connecticut Homepage: https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/home `Applied Introduction to Cryptography' textbook and lectures: https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/applied-crypto-textbook<https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/applied-crypto-textbook> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 8:50 PM Randy Bush <randy () psg com<mailto:randy () psg com>> wrote: do folk use uPRF strict mode? i always worried about the multi-homed customer sending packets out the other way which loop back to me; see RFC 8704 §2.2 do vendors implement the complexity of 8704; and, if so, do operators use it? clue bat please randy
Current thread:
- Re: uPRF strict more, (continued)
- Re: uPRF strict more Nick Hilliard (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more Mark Tinka (Sep 29)
- RE: uPRF strict more Brian Turnbow via NANOG (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more Barry Greene (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more Mark Tinka (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more Blake Hudson (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more Mark Tinka (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more Blake Hudson (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more Sabri Berisha (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more Blake Hudson (Sep 30)
- Re: uPRF strict more Phil Bedard (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more brad dreisbach (Sep 29)
- RE: uPRF strict more Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Sep 29)
- Re: uPRF strict more brad dreisbach (Sep 29)
- RE: uPRF strict more Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Sep 29)
- Message not available
- RE: uPRF strict more Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Sep 29)