Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers?

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>]

Joe Abley wrote:
> On 2005-06-03, at 10:26, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> > christian.macnevin () uk bnpparibas com wrote:
> >
> > > I guess it's been a while since I've played with it, but isn't  this 
> > > pretty
> > > well what happens with uRPF anyhow?
> >
> > No, my proposal works as long as the customer advertizes their  prefixes
> > via BGP, not matter how long the path or what community attributes are
> > set (for example NOEXPORT).  No matter how they send it, as long as  they
> > send it, it works fine.
>
>
> So, your proposal is loose-mode uRPF?
I thought that loose-mode uRPF is what was recommended for any connected 
entity that is multi-homed. And that makes sense.

What happened to that? Whats next? uRPF in core?

At which point do we stop breaking things?

There must be a safe way to solve the problem of spoofing routed space 
without breaking multi-homing.