North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers?

  • From: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Fri Jun 03 16:56:08 2005

Joe Abley wrote:
On 2005-06-03, at 10:26, Andre Oppermann wrote:

[email protected] 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.