Re: [nsp] 12.0(14)S/new uRPF code

From: Jared Mauch (jared@puck.nether.net)
Date: Sun Jan 07 2001 - 20:55:06 EST


        There is a config option for that.

        - Jared

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:53:27PM -0500, George Robbins wrote:
> Does a default route count as being "in the table"?
>
> > Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:32:32 -0600
> > From: Basil Kruglov <basil@cifnet.com>
> > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [nsp] 12.0(14)S/new uRPF code
> > Message-ID: <20010107193232.A45684@shell.cifnet.com>
> > Reply-To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 07:24:25PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > but is it going to work in asymmetric environment,
> > > > when two or more paths to the src are available, or is it going to drop
> > > > packets the way 'ip verify unicast reverse-path' did? Thanks,
> > > no, the ip verify source reachable via any command only drops if the
> > > IP address isn't in the routing table at all.
> > >
> > > See the archives around 12/19/2000 for a pdf file that explains it
> > > nicely.
> >
> > *sigh* lazy me.. thanks Jared & Larry!
> >
> > -Basil
> >

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
END OF LINE  | Manager of IP networks built within my own home



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:24 EDT