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

[Mark Borchers]

> 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.

I think I detect a circular argument here.  IMHO, a 
default route to a well-connected transit provider
is not necessarily a hack.
 
> If a router gets a full BGP table from its peer it should 
> never need a default route.

True in theory of course.  Although I must say that I've heard
"default-free" used as a definition of "tier 1" ISPs but never
as a comprehensive description of all multihomed networks.

:-)