Covering prefix blackholing traffic to one of its covered prefixes....

[Steven Wallace <ssw () iu edu>]

We have dual-homed sites that only accept routes from their peers, and default to their transit provider. A site may 
receive a covering prefix from a peer, but since they are not accepting the full table from their transit provider they 
don’t see the covered (i.e., more specific). In some cases the peer announcing the covering prefix blackholes traffic 
to the covered prefix.

Is this accepted behavior, or should a peer announcing a covering prefix always delver packets to its covered routes?


Does this happen often?

Thanks!

Steven Wallace
Indiana University

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: