nanog mailing list archives
RE: register.com down sev0?
From: "Tony Li" <tli () tropos com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:38:15 -0700
It was possible to implement BCP38 before the router vendors came up with uRPF.
Further, uRPF is frequently a very inefficient means of implementing BCP 38. Consider that you're going to either compare the source address against a table of 200,000 routes or against a handful of prefixes that you've statically configured in an ACL. Yes, I realize that the latter approach is more of a managerial hassle, but for those of you who feel that your silicon is running a tad too warm, you may wish to consider this as a possible performance improvement technique. YMMV. Your former router vendor, Tony
Current thread:
- Re: register.com down sev0?, (continued)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Randy Bush (Oct 25)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Chris L. Morrow (Oct 26)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Randy Bush (Oct 26)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Gadi Evron (Oct 26)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Randy Bush (Oct 25)
- 10,352 active botnets (was Re: register.com down sev0? Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 26)
- Re: 10,352 active botnets (was Re: register.com down sev0? Matthew Crocker (Oct 26)
- Re: 10,352 active botnets (was Re: register.com down sev0? Jack Bates (Oct 26)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Jared Mauch (Oct 26)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Daniel Senie (Oct 26)
- RE: register.com down sev0? Tony Li (Oct 26)
- different flavours of uRPF [RE: register.com down sev0?] Pekka Savola (Oct 26)
- Re: different flavours of uRPF [RE: register.com down sev0?] Tony Li (Oct 27)
- Re: different flavours of uRPF [RE: register.com down sev0?] Chris L. Morrow (Oct 27)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Gadi Evron (Oct 26)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 26)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Randy Bush (Oct 26)
- Re: register.com down sev0? Michael . Dillon (Oct 27)