Re: Routing Suggestions

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:54 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:50:40 -0800
> > From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
> > Subject: Re: Routing Suggestions
> >
> > i'm with jon and the static crew.  brutal but simple.
> >
> > if you want no leakage, A can filter the prefix from it's upstreams, both 
> > can low-pref blackhole it, ...
>
> One late comment --
>
> OP stated that the companies were exchanging 'sensitive' traffic. I suspect
> that they di *NOT* want this traffic to route over the public internet -if-
> he private point-to-point link goes down.  if they're running any sort of a
> dynamic/active routing protocol then -that- route is going to disappear 
> if/*WHEN* the private link goes down, and the packets will be subject to
> whatever other routing rules -- e.g. a 'default' route -- are in place. 
>
> This would seem to be a compelling reason to use a static route -- insuring
> that traffic _fails_ to route, instead of failing over to a public internet
> route, in the event of a link failure.
That's why I always prefer to put this traffic inside an IPSEC VPN. Then,
you gain the advantage of being able to let the internet serve as a backup
for your preferred private path while still protecting your sensitive information.

Then I use dynamic routing and take advantage of the diverse path capabilities.

Owen