RE: Partial vs Full tables

[Drew Weaver <drew.weaver () thenap com>]

Yeah, as I mentioned this was a few years ago.

=)

-----Original Message-----
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:54 AM
To: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver () thenap com>
Cc: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>; brad dreisbach <bradd () us ntt net>; nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Partial vs Full tables

Hey Drew,

> The only time we have ever noticed any sort of operational downside of using uRPF loose was when NTTs router in NYC 
> thought a full table was only 500,000 routes a few years back.

If NTT is 2914 this can no longer happen and it is difficult to see
2914 would ever go back to uRPF. In typical implementation today ACL is much cheaper than uRPF, so we've migrated to 
ACL. uRPF value proposition is mostly on CLI Jockey networks, if configuration are generated for most use-cases ACL is 
superior solution anyhow.

In your particular defect, it doesn't seem to matter if uRPF was or was not enabled, was it dropped by uRPF/loose 
failure or lookup failure seems uninteresting (We do not default route).

--
  ++ytti