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

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> The assumption is that as long as you are getting a full table from a
> provider who has ensured that they have a best path for every received
> announced route, then so do you. This is how the protocol is  
> supposed to
> converge.

1) Reality always trumps theory.

2) Anyone who is single homed is doing the whole Internet a  
disservice to run BGP.

3) No matter how "the protocol is supposed to converge", things  
happen.  A well engineered network will plan for these  
eventualities.  And default route is a simple, elegant way to give  
your customers greater uptime.


But, end of day, it's your network, so it's your decision.  (Although  
I could argue against it for single-homed BGP speakers.)  You don't  
like default, you want to "trust" your upstream, then so be it.  Just  
like I can decide that my network will tag prefixes as no-export.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick