Dear Sriram, On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 05:58:51AM +0000, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote: > My responses marked [Sriram] below: > > [Job]: In section 3, the border router which received Q1, might not be > the same border router which received Q2 and Q3, these two border > routers might not have the same view on the routing table: each could > have a partial routing table (and reach the other through a default > route). > > [Job] In the above configuration, if Enhanced Feasible-Path uRPF would > be enabled on the interface between these two border routers, it would > result in blackholing, correct? > > [Sriram]: We were not considering uRPF on data links internal to an > AS. The uRPF is assumed applied on the external facing interfaces > (customer, peer etc.). Also, we are considering scenarios where the > border routers within an AS exchange routes and have full tables.
OK, that was not clear to me. > In scenarios like what you point out where there is default routing, > even loose uRPF on the internal or external facing interfaces is not > possible, right? Maybe, depends on the implementation and configuration! :-) Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
