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

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 3, 2005, at 3:40 PM, David J. Hughes wrote:

> On 04/06/2005, at 1:10 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Or better still, receive default along with the rest of your  
> desired table from the transit provider and drop the pref on that  
> as it passes the border.  Static defaults can bite you on the arse  
> if something happens to the box at the other end of the link.   
> Nothing worse than following a default you generate just to see the  
> traffic get black holed.

Not "better still", but "in addition to".

-- 
TTFN,
patrick