[c-nsp] Re: Re: URPF on small BGP-enabled customers?

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 3, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Chris Adams wrote:

> We're not single-homed, but if "bad stuff" happens (Ciscos never  
> crash,
> right?), we can be for a period while we fix things.  If you don't  
> want
> to talk to our network because we've lost some of our connectivity,
> that's your problem I guess.

You pay for transit?  All your packets can fit over one pipe while  
the other one experiences "bad stuff"?  Then why not default?

Bad Stuff can happen in lots of places, which might not be my fault,  
your fault, or anyone's fault.  Why not avoid them with a simple one- 
line config?

If you have gigabits of traffic and multiple lines that won't take  
all the bits, default might not make sense.  (Still might, situations  
vary.)  But if you have two transit links and either one is bigger  
than your total traffic, seems silly to me not to point a low-pref  
static default route at (at least) one of them.

IMHO.  YMMV.  Etc., etc.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick