nanog mailing list archives
Re: routing table go boom
From: Sander Steffann <sander () steffann nl>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:33:09 +0100
Hi,
As the ETR is not the final destination, it is subject to blackholing after ETR, which means: The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the endpoints of the communication system. Granted that it is no worse than multihoming by routing protocols. But, it merely means that neither BGP nor LISP works "completely and correctly".
Well, yeah, if your internal routing (behind the ETR) breaks then your network is broken... Met vriendelijke groet, Sander Steffann
Current thread:
- Re: routing table go boom (was: Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification), (continued)
- Re: routing table go boom (was: Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification) David Conrad (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Dobbins, Roland (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Dobbins, Roland (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Dobbins, Roland (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom William Herrin (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Sander Steffann (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Mike (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Matthew Walster (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Jared Mauch (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Jared Mauch (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Randy Bush (Mar 21)
- Re: routing table go boom Brielle Bruns (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom William Herrin (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Luigi Iannone (Mar 20)