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

[Joe Maimon]

David J. Hughes wrote:
> On 04/06/2005, at 12:16 AM, Pete Templin wrote:
> 
> 
>>It's not a good compromise.  There are (stupid, IMHO) networks who are
>>single-homed to Sprint but run BGP and do NOT have a default route.
>>No-export means no-reachy to those networks.
> 
> 
> This happened to us recently  (i.e. single homed, non-defaulted network 
> didn't get our prefixes due to no-export).  I clearly remember 
> wondering at the the time how anyone could be quite that daft.  It 
> never ceases to amaze me just how creatively stupid the human brain 
> will allow you to be if you try hard enough.
> 
OK I have to ask.

And if they were mutlihomed to the same two peers that you announced 
no-export?

Should they still be taking default then?

IMHO all those who tag no-export and then are surprised when people 
surprise surprise dont get those routes, those are the daft ones.

You want people to reach your network it is your responsibility to get 
YOUR prefix routes over to them. It is not their responsibility to hack 
in a default routes and what not.

If a router gets a full BGP table from its peer it should never need a 
default route.

> 
> David
> ...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
>