Re: Routing Suggestions

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> 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.