nanog mailing list archives
Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:56:31 +0200
On 18/Aug/15 22:43, Nick Hilliard wrote:
i'd advise being careful with this approach: urpf at ixps is a nightmare.
We don't generally do uRPF at exchange points, for the simple reason that the router is dedicated (meaning it does not carry a full table), and peers leaking your routes to the Internet (which breaks uRPF in this scenario) is a constant scenario. *sigh* Mark.
Current thread:
- Fwd: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits, (continued)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Fwd: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Mark Tinka (Aug 25)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits William Herrin (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 19)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Pshem Kowalczyk (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits John Osmon (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Bob Evans (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)