[c-nsp] IP SLA?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:34:53PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Not being negative, just saying that while an IGP can solve the failure
> detection issue faster than BGP can, it opens up other issues you really
> need to evaluate. It will be difficult for you to appreciate these
> issues until you have experienced them yourself, however.

On the other hand, while you are still all picking on me for suggesting
an IGP - don't forget the havoc that you can do with BGP, like, "not
having proper incoming filters" and "not ensuring that prefixes you
do not want to send to other parties do not leak", and such :-)
(insert shameless plug for RFC 7454 here...)

So whatever protocol you use (besides static+bfd), you MUST ensure that
a) you only accept what the customer is permitted to announce (typos and
other accidents happen), and b) you clearly understand how far you want
that information to propagate, and ensure that it happens that way.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 291 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20150329/cce83bf9/attachment.sig>